Honda Port of Entry Project

Transcription

CITY OF RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
Honda Port of Entry
at the Point Potrero Marine Terminal
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
SCH #2008022063
VOLUME II – TECHNICAL APPENDICES
JULY 2008
Table of Contents
HONDA PORT OF ENTRY
Draft Environmental Impact Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.
Introduction .............................................................................................................................1–1
1.1 The Intent of CEQA.................................................................................................1–1
1.2 Background and Scope of this EIR.......................................................................1–2
1.3 The CEQA Process...................................................................................................1–3
2.
Summary...................................................................................................................................2–1
2.1 Project Proposal........................................................................................................2–1
2.2 Project Impacts .........................................................................................................2–2
2.3 Areas of Controversy ..............................................................................................2–3
2.4 Alternatives to the Proposed Project ...................................................................2–4
3.
Project Description..................................................................................................................3–1
3.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................3–1
3.2 Overview ...................................................................................................................3–1
3.3 History of the Project ..............................................................................................3–3
3.4 Project Location and Site Characteristics............................................................3–4
3.5 Existing Terminal Facilities and Operations......................................................3–7
3.6 Proposed Construction.........................................................................................3–13
3.7 Proposed Project Operations...............................................................................3–20
3.8 Project Objectives...................................................................................................3–25
3.9 Required Approvals..............................................................................................3–26
3.10 Responsible Agencies ...........................................................................................3–27
4.
Land Use and Planning .........................................................................................................4–1
4.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................4–1
4.2 Setting.........................................................................................................................4–2
4.3 Standards of Significance .....................................................................................4–57
4.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures......................................................................4–58
5.
Traffic and Transportation....................................................................................................5–1
5.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................5–1
5.2 Vehicle Traffic Setting.............................................................................................5–1
5.3 Train Traffic Setting ..............................................................................................5–10
5.4 Marine Traffic Setting ...........................................................................................5–22
5.5 Standards of Significance ....................................................................................5–31
5.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures......................................................................5–32
Honda Port of Entry Draft EIR
i
Table of Contents
6.
Air Quality ...............................................................................................................................6–1
6.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................6–1
6.2 Setting ........................................................................................................................6–1
6.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .....................................................................6–19
7.
Noise..........................................................................................................................................7–1
7.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................7–1
7.2 Setting ........................................................................................................................7–1
8.
Biological Resources...............................................................................................................8–1
8.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................8–1
8.2 Terrestrial Biology Setting .....................................................................................8–1
8.3 Marine Biology Setting ...........................................................................................8–7
8.4 Regulatory Framework ........................................................................................8–10
8.5 Special–Status Biological Resources ..................................................................8–27
9.
Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................9–1
9.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................9–1
9.2 Setting ........................................................................................................................9–1
10.
Geology and Soils .................................................................................................................10–1
10.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................10–1
10.2 Setting ......................................................................................................................10–1
10.3 Standards of Significance ..................................................................................10–16
10.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...................................................................10–16
11.
Hydrology and Water Quality...........................................................................................11–1
11.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................11–1
11.2 Terrestrial Hydrology/Water Quality Setting ................................................11–1
11.3 Marine Hydrology/Water Quality Setting......................................................11–5
11.4 Regulatory Framework .....................................................................................11–12
11.5 Standards of Significance...................................................................................11–20
12.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials...................................................................................12–1
12.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................12–1
12.2 Setting ......................................................................................................................12–1
13.
Visual Quality........................................................................................................................13–1
13.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................13–1
13.2 Setting ......................................................................................................................13–2
ii
Table of Contents
14.
Utilities ....................................................................................................................................14–1
14.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................14–1
14.2 Wastewater Service ...............................................................................................14–2
14.3 Water Service .........................................................................................................14–5
14.4 Storm Drainage ................................................................................................... 14–11
14.5 Solid Waste Disposal.......................................................................................... 14–13
15.
Alternatives to the Proposed Project ................................................................................15–1
15.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................15–1
15.2 Alternatives Evaluated in this EIR.....................................................................15–6
16.
Other CEQA Considerations ..............................................................................................16–1
16.1 Growth–Inducing Impacts...................................................................................16–1
16.2 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts...............................................16–2
16.3 Effects Not Found to be Significant ...................................................................16–4
16.4 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes............................................16–4
16.5 Cumulative Impacts ..............................................................................................16–5
17.
Report Preparation and Bibliography ..............................................................................17–1
17.1 Report Authors and Project Consultants..........................................................17–1
17.2 Individuals and Organizations Consulted.......................................................17–3
17.3 Bibliography ...........................................................................................................17–4
18.
List of Acronyms Used in This EIR...................................................................................18–1
iii
Table of Contents
Appendices (Volume II)
A. Initial Study/Notice of Preparation ........................................................................A–1
B. NOP Comment Letters............................................................................................... B–1
C. Intersection Level of Service Calculations .............................................................C–1
D. Air Quality Analysis Methodology and Assumptions .......................................D–1
E. Noise Measurements .................................................................................................. E–1
F. Special–Status Plant Species.......................................................................................F–1
G. Special–Status Animal Species .................................................................................G–1
H. Special–Status Species Designation Codes ............................................................H–1
iv
Table of Contents
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 3–1
Project Site Location ...................................................................................................... 3–2
Figure 3–2
Aerial View of Project Area .........................................................................................3–5
Figure 3–3
Overview of Existing PPMT Facilities .....................................................................3–29
Figure 3–4
Existing PPMT Buildings............................................................................................3–31
Figure 3–5
Existing Port Property at the PPMT .........................................................................3–32
Figure 3–6
Existing Ship and Train Facilities .............................................................................3–33
Figure 3–7
Proposed Improvement Areas ..................................................................................3–35
Figure 3–8
Proposed PPMT Rail Yard Layout ...........................................................................3–37
Figure 3–9
Proposed BNSF Automotive Facility Improvements...........................................3–39
Figure 3–10
Existing and Proposed PPMT Lighting Plan..........................................................3–41
Figure 3–11
Planned Bay Trail Segment at the PPMT ................................................................3–43
Figure 3–12
Process Flow Diagrams of Existing and Proposed Operations..........................3–45
Figure 4–1
Overview of Neighboring Land Uses........................................................................ 4–5
Figure 4–2
Neighboring Residential Uses West of PPMT .........................................................4–7
Figure 4–3
Private Marina Uses West of PPMT ........................................................................... 4–8
Figure 4–4
Neighboring Land Uses North of PPMT .................................................................. 4–9
Figure 4–5
Neighboring Land Uses East of PPMT....................................................................4–10
Figure 4–6
Current General Plan Land Use Designations.......................................................4–14
Figure 4–7
San Francisco Bay Plan Map of North Central Bay ..............................................4–36
Figure 4–8
Existing and Planned Bay Trail Segments in the Project Vicinity .....................4–49
Figure 4–9
Zoning Districts in Project Vicinity ..........................................................................4–54
Figure 5–1
Traffic Study Intersections ...........................................................................................5–3
Figure 5–2
Existing (2007) Peak–Hour Traffic Volumes ............................................................5–7
Figure 5–3
Locations of Background Projects ............................................................................5–13
Figure 5–4
Existing Plus Background Peak–Hour Traffic Volumes......................................5–14
Figure 5–5
Railroad Network in the City of Richmond ...........................................................5–17
Figure 5–6
Regional Regulated Navigation Areas ....................................................................5–23
Figure 5–7
2006 Ship Arrivals to San Francisco Bay .................................................................5–30
Figure 5–8
Project Traffic Distribution.........................................................................................5–37
v
Table of Contents
Figure 5–9
Existing Plus Background Plus Project Peak–Hour Traffic Volumes ............... 5–38
Figure 5–10
Future Cumulative Year 2030 Peak–Hour Traffic Volumes ............................... 5–48
Figure 5–11
Future Cumulative Year 2030 Plus Project Peak–Hour Traffic Volumes ........ 5–49
Figure 6–1
Wind Rose for Richmond Field Station..................................................................... 6–3
Figure 6–2
Incremental Cancer Risks........................................................................................... 6–31
Figure 7–1
Noise Monitoring Locations ........................................................................................ 7–4
Figure 7–2
Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environment .......................... 7–11
Figure 8–1
Delineation of Wetlands On/Adjacent to BNSF Site ............................................. 8–5
Figure 10–1
Active and Potentially Active Regional Earthquake Faults..............................10–11
Figure 11–1
Project Site Bathymetry and Regulated Navigation Areas ................................. 11–8
Figure 11–2
Proposed New Pavement at the PPMT ................................................................. 11–24
Figure 13–1
Views of the PPMT from the Seacliff Neighborhood........................................... 13–7
Figure 13–2
Views of the PPMT Site from Neighboring Parks ............................................... 13–9
Figure 13–3
Existing and Proposed Operational Lighting Levels ......................................... 13–17
Figure 13–4
Existing and Proposed Security Lighting Levels ................................................13–19
Figure 13–5
Views of Nighttime Lighting of the PPMT from the West ...............................13–22
Figure 13–6
Conceptual Site Lighting Elevation, Operational Mode ................................... 13–23
Figure 13–7
Views of Nighttime Lighting of the PPMT from the East ................................. 13–27
Figure 13–8
Existing and Simulated Future View of Nighttime Lighting of the PPMT ... 13–35
vi
Table of Contents
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 2–1
Summary of Environmental Effects ........................................................................... 2–7
Table 3–1
Existing and Projected Annual Vehicle and Carrier Volumes ...........................3–11
Table 5–1
Intersection Level of Service Thresholds .................................................................. 5–6
Table 5–2
Existing Intersection Levels of Service ...................................................................... 5–8
Table 5–3
Background Projects Trip Generation .....................................................................5–11
Table 5–4
Existing Plus Background Intersection Levels of Service....................................5–15
Table 5–5
Monitored Canal Boulevard Train Crossings ........................................................5–19
Table 5–6
Observed Peak Commute Period Train Traffic .....................................................5–20
Table 5–7
Daily BNSF Train Switching Operations ................................................................5–21
Table 5–8
Major Oil Spills in San Francisco Bay Since 1971 ..................................................5–25
Table 5–9
Annual Ship Arrivals to San Francisco Bay............................................................5–29
Table 5–10
Annual Ship Arrivals to the Port of Richmond .....................................................5–31
Table 5–11
Project Trip Generation...............................................................................................5–36
Table 5–12
Existing Plus Background Plus Project Peak–Hour Levels of Service..............5–39
Table 5–13
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Under All Traffic Scenarios ..................................5–41
Table 5–14
Canal Boulevard Traffic Index Calculations ..........................................................5–44
Table 5–15
Estimated Parking Demand at the PPMT ...............................................................5–46
Table 5–16
Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Intersection Levels of Service .................5–50
Table 5–17
Estimated Project Train Traffic..................................................................................5–52
Table 5–18
Existing Hourly Traffic Volumes on Wharf Street................................................5–54
Table 6–1
State and National Criteria Air Pollutant Standards, Effects and Sources........ 6–5
Table 6–2
Air Quality Data Summary (2003–2007) For the Project Area............................6–16
Table 6–3
Daily Operational Emissions .....................................................................................6–22
Table 6–4
Annual Operational Emissions .................................................................................6–23
Table 7–1
Typical Noise Levels...................................................................................................... 7–2
Table 7–2
Existing Noise Measurements .....................................................................................7–5
Table 7–3
Typical Construction Noise Levels ..........................................................................7–15
Table 7–4
Typical Noise Levels From Construction Equipment..........................................7–15
Table 7–5
Existing and 2010 Traffic–Related Noise Levels....................................................7–17
vii
Table of Contents
Table 7–6
Year 2030 Traffic–Related Noise Levels .................................................................. 7–19
Table 9–1
Previous Archaeological Surveys within the Project Area ................................. 9–11
Table 10–1
Summary of Historic Earthquakes Greater Than Magnitude 5 within
20 Miles of the Site ....................................................................................................... 10–4
Table 10–2
Active Faults within 62 Miles (100 km) of the Project Site.................................. 10–7
Table 10–3
Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale............................................................................. 10–9
Table 11–1
Proposed 2006 Section 303(d) List of Pollutants
for Central Bay and San Pablo Bay .......................................................................... 11–6
Table 11–2
Channel Depths Adjacent to the PPMT .................................................................. 11–9
Table 11–3
NOAA Tidal Datums for Richmond, Chevron Oil Pier .................................... 11–10
Table 13–1
Illumination Readings For Reference .................................................................... 13–12
Table 13–2
Scene Luminance at Seacliff Park ........................................................................... 13–16
Table 13–3
Light Trespass at Seacliff Park ................................................................................13–26
Table 15–1
Project Alternatives Comparison............................................................................15–24
viii
Appendix A
Initial Study/
Notice Of Preparation
CITY OF RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
Honda Port of Entry
at the Point Potrero Marine Terminal
INITIAL STUDY
FEBRUARY 2008
COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GROUP
PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
February 11, 2008
NOTICE OF PREPARATION of a
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The City of Richmond, as Lead Agency, will prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Honda Port
of Entry project described below, proposed by Auto Warehousing Company (AWC). The City is requesting input
from your agency regarding the scope and content of the environmental information to be presented in the EIR
that is germane to your agency’s statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency
will need to use the EIR prepared by the City of Richmond when considering your permit or other discretionary
approval of the proposed project.
Please mail or email your written response to this Notice of Preparation no later than 30 days after the date on
this notice to:
Kieron Slaughter, Assistant Planner
City of Richmond Planning Department
1401 Marina Way South
Richmond, CA 94804
Phone: (510) 620-6887
[email protected]
Please include in your written response the name and phone number of a contact person in your agency.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Auto Warehousing Company (AWC) is proposing to expand its existing operations at the Port of Richmond to
develop a Northern California Port of Entry for Honda automobiles. AWC currently receives and processes
Hyundai and Kia cars imported from Korea by ship. AWC, in cooperation with the TransDevelopment Group,
is proposing to construct improvements to the Point Potrero Marine Terminal (PPMT) that would include
repairs to one of the ship berths and creation of a new rail yard adjacent to the ship berths at the PPMT so that
imported autos could be loaded directly onto rail cars without the current intermediary step of shuttling them
to the BNSF rail yard approximately 1 mile to the north. The PPMT site is located on the southern Richmond
shoreline, at the edge of the Richmond Inner Harbor. The PPMT is located at the southern terminus of Canal
Boulevard, on Point Potrero, and immediately adjacent to the Harbor Channel, the primary water access to the
Port of Richmond. The site consists of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 560–320–002, 560–320–016, and
560–320–017.
Following completion of the rail yard and ship berth improvements, Honda would begin delivering autos
manufactured in Japan to the PPMT facility in car–carrying ships. Approximately one ship per week would be
unloaded, in addition to the existing traffic of approximately one ship per week arriving from Korea. After a
short period of storage on the PPMT site, some of the new autos would be loaded onto car carrier trucks for
distribution around the Bay Area and northern California, and the remainder would loaded onto trains for
distribution to other western and midwestern states. Honda expects to import 150,000 vehicles per year by ship,
and would distribute approximately 35,000 of those vehicles via truck to dealerships throughout northern
California.
Additional details about the proposed project, including a location map and site plan, are presented in the
attached Initial Study
SCOPING MEETING
The City of Richmond will conduct a public scoping meeting on March 5, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council
chambers located at 1401 Marina Way South, Richmond, CA. All members of the public and representatives
from public agencies are invited to attend this meeting to provide your views on the issues that should be
addressed in the Honda Port of Entry EIR.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD: February 12, 2008 to March 13, 2008
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Initial Study / Environmental Checklist Form
for the proposed
Honda Port of Entry Project
1.
Project Title: Honda Port of Entry
2.
Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Richmond
1401 Marina Way South
Richmond, CA 94804
3.
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Kieron Slaughter, Assistant Planner
(510) 620–6887
[email protected]
4.
Project Location:
The project site is located in the southwestern portion of the City of Richmond, in western
Contra Costa County (Figure 1). The site is adjacent to the shoreline of the Richmond Inner
Harbor, located in central San Francisco Bay. Specifically, the project site is at the southern
terminus of Canal Boulevard, on Point Potrero, and immediately adjacent to the Harbor
Channel, the primary water access to the Port of Richmond (Figure 2).
5.
Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
AutoWarehousing Company
Bill Robbins, Project Manager
(503) 241–2522
[email protected]
6.
General Plan Designation:
Heavy Industry; Port/Marine Terminal/Ship Repair.
7.
Zoning:
M–3 (Heavy Industrial); M–4 (Marine Industrial).
Initial Study
Honda Port of Entry
1
RF
ha
W
HA
C
nn
R
L
S
O
N
POTRERO AVE
B
L
WRIGHT AV
DR
** *
ST
D ST
40TH
ST
41ST
43R
ST
ST
38TH
ST
ST
V
D
S
el
37TH
D ST
18TH S T
16TH S T
35TH
33R
31S
ST
28TH
26TH
T S
T
26
ST
ST
24TH
22ND S T
20TH S T
18TH S T
11TH S T
8TH ST
S 7TH ST
S 2ND ST
WALL AVE
A
CUTTING BLVD
L
NA
Harb
CA
ann
or Ch
VD
BL
DO
AN
RN
C
VIRGINIA AV
MARINA WY S.
e
MAINE AV
HARBOR WAY S.
F
80
CENTER AV
FLORIDA AV
*
a
ST
2
nt
OHIO AV
S 4TH ST
Sa
AV
6TH ST
1ST ST
G
W. CUTTING BLVD
AV
IN A
V
39TH
D
V
L
B
D
R
A
R
R
A
F
S
BN
W OHIO AV
** *
F
2
9T
7T
6TH S T
2ND S T
3R D S T
4TH S T
AST
ST
O
TR
AS
C
R
R
5
RET
T
NEV
BISSELL AV
**
LIF
AC
E
S
B AR
MAC DONALD AV
AV
ON
** *
GR ANT AV
LS
WI
10A
G A R V IN A V
S
BU R BE C K A V
P
T
C
O
PO TR E R O
R
R
PIERSON AV
580
HALL AV
3
4
Richmond
Marina
Bay
el
1
Ford
Channel
Point Potrero
Harbor
Richmond Inner
E
R
N
SAR
N
LY
Legend
San Pablo
B ay
H
A
DR
PROJECT BOUNDARY
R
3
TERMINAL 3
4
FORD ASSEMBLY BUILDING
5
BNSF RICHMOND YARD
PINOLE
SITE
Fra
BNSF AUTOMOTIVE FACILITY
a
n
600
Bay
sco
e
300
nci
c
0
DR
San
2
O
POINT POTRERO MARINE TERMINAL
c
i f i
P ac
1
1200
FEET
Figure 1
Project Site Location
Source: Douglas Herring & Associates
580
BNSF
AUTOMOTIVE
FACILITY
SA
N
FE
CH
AN
NE
L
RESIDENTIAL
INDUSTRIAL
IFF DR
SEACL
Historic Entrance Gate
Building 23
CANAL BLV
INDUSTRIAL
D
Pier 2
Terminal 3
Truck Loading Area
Employee Parking
POINT POTRERO
AUTOMOTIVE
FACILITY
Fueling Station
Pier 1
Current Entrance Gate
and Guard House
Car Wash
Building 9
Leased Port Storage
and Berthing Area
HARBOR
HARBOR
CHANNEL
Building 5
(Body Shop)
Berth 7
Basin 1
Basin 2
Berth 6C
Basin 3
Basin 4
Graving Docks
Basin 5
Berth 6A
Building 4
(Auto Processing)
Building 24
Historic Whirly Crane
Building 6
Ford Assembly Building
Figure 2
Overview of Existing PPMT Facilities
Source: TransDevelopment Group
8.
Description of Project:
Auto Warehousing Company (AWC), in cooperation with the TransDevelopment Group, is
proposing to construct improvements to the existing Point Potrero Marine Terminal (PPMT)
that would include creating a new rail yard adjacent to the ship berths at the PPMT so that
imported autos could be loaded directly onto rail cars without the current intermediary step of
shuttling them to the Burlington–Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) rail yard. Minor improvements to
one of the existing ship berths would also be made, consisting of repairs to the concrete deck
pavement, installation of new bull rail at the edge of the berth, and installation of new rubber
dock fenders on the side of the berth. Each of these project components is described in more
detail below. An overview of the improvements is shown on Figure 3.
Following completion of the rail yard and ship berth improvements, Honda would establish the
Port of Richmond as its Northern California port of entry, and would begin delivering autos
manufactured in Japan directly to the PPMT facility in car–carrying ships. After processing by
AWC, they would be loaded onto trains for distribution around the rest of the U.S., and loaded
onto car carrier trucks for distribution around the Bay Area and northern California. Honda
expects to import 150,000 vehicles per year by ship, and would distribute approximately 35,000
of those vehicles via truck to dealerships throughout northern California. Honda also imports
autos into the Port of San Diego, which currently serves as the port of entry for the entire State
of California, and which would remain the distribution point for autos to the southern
California region following implementation of the proposed project. Approximately 35,000
imported Hondas per year are currently brought into Northern California by auto carrier from
the Port of San Diego; these highway trips would be eliminated by the proposed project.
Point Potrero Rail Yard
The northern end of the proposed PPMT rail yard would begin where the historic Kaiser
shipyard entrance gate and guard house are located, just east of Building 23. At this point a
series of track switches would split the lead track into two lines, each of which would split two
more times. As shown on Figure 3, the easternmost portion of these new tracks would veer east
onto the adjacent BP/Arco property and the remaining tracks would extend south to the
northern end of Ship Berth 7, forming seven loading tracks approximately 1,300 feet in length.
The tracks would be spaced 19 to 22 feet apart and would accommodate loading and unloading
operations from either end or from the middle of six–railcar train segments that would be
coupled into longer train lengths prior to departure from the PPMT.
The rail yard would be constructed in an area currently occupied by an auto storage area, part
of the employee parking lot constructed in 2004, and the private PPMT driveway extending
south from the terminus of Canal Boulevard. A new, relocated entrance road would be built, as
discussed below.
Prior to constructing the new tracks, the existing asphalt pavement in the rail yard area would
be removed and the subgrade would be excavated to a depth of 24 to 30 inches. The asphalt
would be ground up on site and used as road bed for the new track. Although the majority of
the proposed rail yard area is currently paved with asphalt, an unpaved strip east of the PPMT
driveway—about 25 feet wide and 600 feet long—would be paved over to accommodate the rail
yard. The ballast sections of the proposed tracks would be paved with asphalt and the rails
would be constructed flush with the pavement, permitting the movement of autos across the
tracks. Paved “shag roads” would extend between each pair of tracks to allow vehicular access
alongside the railcars.
An 8–foot–high cyclone security fence topped with barbed wire would extend along the east
side of Track 7, the easternmost track in the rail yard. This fencing would enclose a proposed
Initial Study
Honda Port of Entry
5
access road along the Port’s eastern property line, which would provide vehicle access to the
BP/Arco facility located adjacent to the PPMT. The two–lane paved access road would have a
30–foot right–of–way and a 24–foot–wide roadway.
Lead Track
An existing light–gauge (90–pound) lead track currently extends from the BNSF auto terminal
to the BP/Arco blending facility, as shown on Figure 3. This track would be realigned and
replaced with heavier 136–pound rail. The realignment would start about 150 feet north of the
historic entrance gate, and would be moved about 30 feet west of its current alignment. Similar
to the proposed rail yard, construction of the new lead track would require excavation to a
depth of 24 to 30 inches. The new track would also be constructed flush with the roadway at
driveway crossings to BP/Arco and other existing industrial facilities located along the east side
of Canal Boulevard.
BNSF Auto Terminal Improvements
New loading/unloading tracks would also be constructed at the BNSF auto terminal north of
the PPMT as part of the proposed project. Although these improvements would be
implemented by BNSF, they would occur in conjunction with and as a result of the proposed
project. The facility currently has two loading/flex tracks that diagonally bisect the property.
Six new loading/unloading tracks would be constructed west of and parallel to these tracks,
providing new storage capacity for 73 railcars. This area is currently used as a staging and auto
storage area. Similar to the construction of the PPMT rail yard, the existing asphalt pavement
would be excavated to a depth of 24 to 30 inches, with the asphalt ground up on site and reused
as fill for the track support bed. The track rails would also be constructed flush with the new
pavement.
Construction of the new tracks would require filling of a portion of a wetland ditch that runs
alongside Canal Boulevard and the edge of the BNSF terminal. At the southern end near Wharf
Street, approximately 200 linear feet of the ditch would be filled. At the northern end, the rail
improvements have been designed to eliminate any requirements for ditch in–fill.
Security fencing similar to that at the PPMT would be erected along both sides of the new
support tracks. The area to the east of the tracks would continue to be used as storage and
staging areas for loading and unloading of automobiles from trains and car carrier trucks. The
area west of the new tracks would also remain in its existing condition, and would be used for
vehicle staging or related operations by BNSF.
Ship Berth Improvements
The project proposes to rehabilitate portions of Berth 6C similar to the improvements that were
made to the adjacent Berth 7 in 2004. On the deck surface, broken concrete with exposed rebar
would be epoxied and then paved over with new concrete. Concrete around the steel bollards
used for tying up ships would also be repaired. Sections of the bull rail, which is a raised
concrete curb at the edge of the berth, would be replaced. Existing tire bumpers would be
replaced with rubber dock fenders along the sides of the wharf to protect moored ships.
Although none of the proposed work would intrude into the channel water, construction best
management practices (BMPs) would be required to ensure concrete, debris, sediment, or
chemical pollutants do not drop or wash into the water.
6
Initial Study
Honda Port of Entry
BOULEVA
RD
TR
FS
CUT TING
AR
HA
W
T
EE
FF
CLI
SEA
DR
E
OUL
AL B
CA N
D
VAR
C
EL
N
N
HA
SA
N
FE
IV
E
HARBOR CHANNEL
0
250
500
1000
FEET
Figure 3
Proposed Improvement Areas
Source: TransDevelopment Group
Miscellaneous Improvements
Access Road
The existing entrance road would be displaced by the proposed PPMT rail yard. To maintain
controlled access into the PPMT while providing access to Port tenants, a new access road
would be constructed along the western perimeter of the facility, outside the existing security
fence enclosing the auto storage areas. An access road that was constructed around the
majority of the perimeter in 2004 would be widened and improved to City of Richmond public
roadway standards for small local roads.
A new road alignment would commence at the northern end of the proposed rail yard,
approximately 250 feet north of the historic entrance gate, as shown on Figure 3. Past Building
23, the road would curve to the west and then follow the western edge of the existing auto
storage area, running along the base of the adjacent hillside. As shown on Figure 3, west of the
new rail yard the new access road would connect with the existing perimeter road providing
Port tenants access to the finger piers and graving docks located at the south side of the PPMT.
It would be extended from the west side of the graving docks to the east side of the docks.
Following implementation of the project, this road would also be used by employees and Port
staff to enter the PPMT.
Entrance Gates and Employee Parking
About 300 feet west of the rail yard, a new truck entrance would branch off from the Port access
road. A gate and guard house would control access into the facility, and the entrance would be
used primarily by the car carrier trucks shipping new autos to northern California dealerships.
The truck loading area would be moved about 900 feet northwest of its current location, which
would be converted to a staging area for outbound rail shipments.
A new parking lot for employees and longshoremen would be established east of the docks and
west of Buildings 24 and 6. Additional parking would be located on the south and east sides of
Building 6. Combined, these new parking areas would provide parking for approximately 80
vehicles. A new pedestrian entrance for facility employees and longshoremen would be
established near the southwest corner of Building 4. A small guard house would be manned by
security personnel restricting access into the facility. Although an additional pedestrian
entrance would be installed next to the northwest corner of Building 6, this gate would
generally be locked and unmanned.
New Lighting
In 2003, the Port installed 16 high–mast light towers in the western portion of the PPMT. The
proposed redevelopment activities would include the installation of an additional 16, 100–foot–
tall light towers throughout the remainder of the PPMT facilities. The primary objectives of the
proposed site lighting are to provide an average illumination level of approximately 3.5 foot
candles under night operating conditions, and an average of 1 foot candle for security. The
design would incorporate settings to allow transition from operational to security lighting
levels, along with the use of downward directed lamps, with cut–off type fixtures to reduce
glare and control light along the property lines.
Bay Trail Segment
A planned future segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail, an approximately 500–mile network
of recreational trails encircling San Francisco and San Pablo Bays, is designated for Point
Potrero. The planned segment extending to the tip of Point Potrero is designated on the maps
developed by the San Francisco Bay Trail Project to implement the Bay Trail Plan.
Initial Study
Honda Port of Entry
9
To facilitate the development of this Bay Trail segment, the Port of Richmond has allocated the
required 14–foot right–of–way width for the multi–use trail into the improvement plans for the
PPMT, with the exception of a few limited areas where existing physical constraints preclude
the provision of the full 14–foot width. A 2–mile trail segment would be constructed as part of
the proposed project, extending from Canal Boulevard at Seacliff Drive to Berth 6 at the PPMT,
where the historic USS Red Oak Victory ship is moored and comprises part of the Rosie the
Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historical Park. This portion of the project is being
funded by a variety of sources, including the Bay Trail Project, California Coastal Conservancy,
the Port, and AWC; additional grants are currently being sought by the Trails for Richmond
Action Committee (TRAC), a local advocacy group.
The paved trail would be constructed immediately adjacent to the PPMT perimeter access road.
Although detailed construction plans are currently being developed, it is anticipated that in
some segments, a physical barrier would separate the trail from the roadway, while on some
segments separation would be created by pavement striping similar to that used on Class II
bikeways. Although signage and interpretive exhibits are part of the plans for the trail, they
would not be implemented as part of the proposed project.
Current project development plans allocate the 14–foot width for the trail from Seacliff Drive to
the southwestern corner of the PPMT graving docks. Due to the presence of an electrical
transformer west of Basin 1 and other physical constraints around the docks, a narrower foot
path would be developed around the graving docks to provide pedestrian access only to the
USS Red Oak Victory and the historic whirly crane located on Craneway 6.
The project would also develop a trailhead parking lot that could also provide parking for an
interpretive center for the Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historical Park
that might be developed by the National Park Service in the historic cafeteria (which is not part
of the project evaluated in this document). The parking lot would be located immediately north
of the historic cafeteria building, and would be enhanced with aesthetic landscaping.
Trail plans being championed by TRAC also include a short spur trail climbing the hillside
northwest of the existing main entrance to the PPMT. The trail would ascend via switchbacks
to an outlook providing scenic vistas of Brooks Island and the Bay beyond. The Port of
Richmond is willing to permit construction of the spur trail, which is located on Port property,
but it is not part of the project evaluated in this Initial Study.
9.
Site Description and Surrounding Land Uses:
The Point Potrero Marine Terminal is located in the southwestern portion of the City of
Richmond, in western Contra Costa County. The site is located at the shoreline of the
Richmond Inner Harbor, located in central San Francisco Bay. As shown on Figure 1, the PPMT
is located at the southern terminus of Canal Boulevard, on Point Potrero, and immediately
adjacent to the Harbor Channel, the primary water access to the Port of Richmond.
Including submerged land, the PPMT occupies an approximately 212.8–acre irregularly–shaped
site that encompasses the end of Point Potrero and a panhandle extending north, adjacent to
Canal Boulevard. Excluding the submerged areas, the site occupies approximately 110 acres.
The site is comprised of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 560–320–002, 560–320–016, and 560–
320–017. The Port of Richmond via the City of Richmond Surplus Property Authority owns
these parcels and leases them to AWC, and would continue to do so under the proposed
project.
10
Initial Study
Honda Port of Entry
The site is essentially level, and covered entirely with impervious pavement and buildings,
most of which were constructed during World War II. Although elevations across most of the
site historically ranged between 10 feet and 16 feet above mean sea level, the western side of the
site was capped in 2004, and the western and central portions of the site were resurfaced. The
resulting elevations now range between 16 feet and 24 feet, with elevations on the eastern side
of the site generally 13–14 feet.
Immediately northwest of the PPMT, a large hillside rises to an elevation of 327 feet. Adjacent
to the PPMT, the hillside is owned by BP/Arco and is partially developed with a petroleum
product tank farm with a dozen storage tanks of varying sizes. Much of the remainder of the
hillside comprises the Miller/Knox Regional Shoreline park owned by the East Bay Regional
Park District (EBRPD).
The PPMT is bounded on the east, south, and west by Bay waters. Although this portion of the
Bay is generally quite shallow, with depths ranging from around 2 to 10 feet, the Harbor
Channel is regularly dredged to depths of approximately 38 feet to provide Port access to
ocean–going ships. The western spit of Brooks Island is about 1,500 feet south of Point Potrero
and defines the western approach of the Harbor Channel, also known as Potrero Reach. The
75–acre Brooks Island (373 acres including surrounding water property) is a bird sanctuary
owned and managed by the EBRPD.
As part of the project, improvements would also be constructed at the BNSF Automotive
Facility located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Cutting Boulevard and Canal
Boulevard. This facility occupies APNs 560–310–019, –020, –021, and –022 and encompasses
approximately 26.15 acres. With the exception of a drainage ditch running along Canal
Boulevard, the property is entirely developed with pavement, rail tracks, and two buildings.
The northern end of Santa Fe Channel defines the northeast boundary of the site, which is level
with elevations between 12 and 15 feet.
Existing Zoning And Land Use Designations
The majority of the PPMT site is zoned M–4 (Marine Industrial), as is all of the BNSF
Automotive Facility. The northernmost parking lot, a 6–acre parcel located on the west side of
Canal Boulevard, is zoned M–3 (Heavy Industrial). The General Plan land use designation for
the entire project site, including the PPMT and BNSF terminal, is Industrial. More specifically,
everything is Industrial—Port/Marine Terminal/Ship Repair with the exception of the two
northerly parking lots west of Canal Boulevard, which are designated Industrial—Heavy
Industry. The site is also located in the Richmond Redevelopment Project 11–A and the
Richmond Enterprise Zone.
10. Required Approvals
In addition to various approvals from the City of Richmond, development of this project would
require the following approvals and/or permits from other agencies:
•
Construction Storm Water Permit (including Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan),
granted by San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
•
Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB, pursuant to the federal
Clean Water Act (1972), as a prerequisite to a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (see below) for partial filling of a wetland ditch adjacent to Canal Boulevard.
Initial Study
Honda Port of Entry
11
12
•
Section 404 Fill Permit from the Corps of Engineers, in compliance with the Clean
Water Act. The applicant is applying to the Corps for coverage under Nationwide
Permit 14 (Linear Transportation Projects).
•
BCDC Development Permit from the San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission (BCDC) for new construction along the San Francisco Bay
shoreline.
Initial Study
Honda Port of Entry
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
X
Aesthetics
Agricultural Resources
X
Air Quality
X
Biological Resources
X
Cultural Resources
X
Geology/Soils
X
Hazards & Haz. Materials
X
Hydrology/Water Quality
X
Land Use/Planning
Mineral Resources
X
Noise
Public Services
X
Utilities/Service Systems
Initial Study
Honda Port of Entry
Recreation
X
Population/Housing
X
Transportation/Traffic
Mandatory Findings of Significance
13
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
X
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or
“potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis
as described on the attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but
it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature
February 7, 2008
Date
Kieron Slaughter
Printed name
City of Richmond
For
14
Initial Study
Honda Port of Entry
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
I.
AESTHETICS — Would the project:
a)
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
X
Explanation: Scenic vistas of the San Francisco Bay are visible from public vantage points
immediately adjacent to the project site including the Miller/Knox Regional Shoreline park.
While the type and intensity of land use on the project site would remain consistent with
existing uses, modifications to the project site to support the proposed project may result in
short term or long term adverse impacts on views of the San Francisco Bay. This will be
addressed in detail in the EIR.
b)
Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
X
Explanation: As described above, the proposed project would be located on an existing marine
industrial site already devoted to auto import and processing operations similar to those of the
proposed project. As a result, damage to scenic resources such as trees and rock outcroppings is
not anticipated. In addition, the proposed project is not located in and around a state scenic
highway.
However, the proposed project would be located in an area identified as the historic Kaiser
Shipyard No. 3, which includes one of four Richmond shipyards dedicated to the production of
military sea vessels during World War Two. The four shipyards are officially designated a
National Register District by the U.S. Department of the Interior. Several buildings on the
project site are designated as Contributory Structures to the District, and considered historic
resources. Although the proposed project is not expected to result in adverse impacts to these
resources, the EIR will evaluate whether adverse effects could occur during project
construction.
c)
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
X
Explanation: The visual character of the project site is dominated by existing industrial uses.
The addition of the proposed project to the project site would be considered a consistent and
compatible industrial use. It is not anticipated that the proposed project would substantially
change the existing land use character of the project site such that it would result in a wholesale
change in the visual environment. Nonetheless, impacts related to the degradation of the
existing visual character will be discussed in detail in the EIR.
Initial Study
Honda Port of Entry
15
Potentially
Significant
Impact
d)
Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
Explanation: The proposed project would result in the introduction of additional sources of
nighttime security lighting around the proposed new rail facilities, ship docks, and car parking
areas. While the site is located in an existing industrial area, new proposed lighting from the
project site may be visible by from some of the adjacent residences and other off–site receptors.
The proposed project may result adverse impacts associated with light and glare and will be
discussed in detail in the EIR.
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
—
In
determining whether impacts to agricultural resources
are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may
refer to the California Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California
Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in
assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would
the project:
a)
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown
on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non–agricultural use?
X
Explanation: The proposed project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency.1 The proposed project
would be constructed on property that is currently zoned and designated for marine and
related industrial use by the City of Richmond. No farming or agricultural activity takes place
on the site nor has it historically taken place. As a result, the proposed project would not affect
agricultural practices and/or convert any farmland to non–agricultural usage. This issue will
not be addressed further in the EIR.
b)
Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
X
Explanation: The proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use
or a Williamson Act contract. As stated above, the proposed project would be constructed on
property that is currently zoned and designated for marine industrial uses by the City of
Richmond. No farming currently takes place on the project site nor is it constrained by a
1
16
California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program, “Contra Costa County Important Farmland 2006” (map), July 2007.
Initial Study
Honda Port of Entry
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Williamson Act Contract. As a result, the proposed project would not conflict with agricultural
practices and/or a Williamson Act Contract. This issue will not be addressed further in the EIR.
c)
Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion
of Farmland to non–agricultural use?
X
Explanation: As mentioned above, the proposed project would be constructed on property that
is currently and historically been utilized for marine industrial uses. No farming or agriculture
takes place on the project site. The proposed project would not affect agricultural practices
and/or convert any farmland to non–agricultural usage. Therefore, the proposed project would
not involve changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, would
result in the conversion of Farmland or agricultural practices to non–agricultural use. This issue
will not be addressed further in the EIR.
III. AIR QUALITY
—
Where available, the
significance criteria established by the applicable air
quality management or air pollution control district may
be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
a)
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
X
Explanation: Construction and operation of the proposed project could conflict with the Bay
Area 2000 Clean Air Plan, by conflicting with assumptions of the plan. This potential impact will
be addressed in detail in the EIR.
b)
Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
X
Explanation: Construction and/or operation of the proposed project could result in potentially
significant short–term or long–term emissions of criteria pollutants from construction activities,
equipment exhaust, or as a result of increased vehicular activity such as ship, truck, and rail
traffic. This will be addressed in detail in the EIR.
c)
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non–attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
X
Explanation: As stated above, construction of the proposed project could result in potentially
significant short–term and long–term emissions of criteria pollutants from construction
Initial Study
Honda Port of Entry
17
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
activities, equipment exhaust, and increased mobile emissions. This will be addressed in detail
in the EIR.
d)
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
X
Explanation: Construction and operation of the proposed project may expose off–site sensitive
receptors, west of the project site, to adverse concentrations of pollutants as a result of short–
term construction emissions or long–term increases in on–site vehicular activity. This will be
discussed in detail in the EIR.
e)
X
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people?
Explanation: The project does not include any sources that typically result in the generation of
odors that are objectionable to a substantial number of people (i.e., solid waste landfills, or
wastewater treatment plants). This issue will not be addressed in the EIR.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
a)
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as
a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
X
Explanation: The proposed project site is already utilized by industrial uses, and habitat on the
site is minimal. However, there is a potential for construction and operation of the proposed
project, which would include potential non–point and point–sources of contaminants and
increased ship activity, to adversely affect adjacent aquatic habitat. Issues of concern could
include marine invasives in ballast water, shoreline erosion of nearby Brooks Island, water
quality issues associated with stormwater runoff, and potential point source spills. Aquatic
birds and other marine animals such as seals and fish may also be affected by the increased boat
activity and use of the project site. Construction of the proposed project would also require
filling of a portion of an undeveloped wetland area that runs alongside Canal Boulevard. As a
result, impacts associated with species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special–status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Game (CDFG) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) will be addressed in detail in
the EIR.
b)
18
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local
or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the
X
Initial Study
Honda Port of Entry
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
Explanation: As described above, the proposed project site is already utilized by marine
industrial uses, and sensitive habitat on the site is minimal. However, construction and
operational activities could have a significant impact on adjacent sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFG and USFWS. This will
c)
Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
X
Explanation: As described above, construction of the project would require the placement of fill
on a wetland ditch that may be subject to regulation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. This potential impact will be addressed in
detail in the EIR.
d)
Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with any
established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
X
Explanation: As described above, impacts associated with construction and operation of the
proposed project, which would include increased ship activity and increased potential for non–
point and point–sources of contaminants, could interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident migratory fish or wildlife species. This will be addressed in detail in the
EIR.
e)
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
X
Explanation: Section 15.04.840.050 of the Richmond Zoning Ordinance requires review of all
projects, both new development and additions or renovations to existing properties, by the
Director of Public Works to ensure their compliance with the provisions of the Urban Forest
Management Plan or any other specific City ordinances and guidelines related to the protection
of sensitive biological resources. This review by the lead agency will ensure project compliance
with local policies and ordinances related to the protection of biological resources.
f)
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Initial Study
Honda Port of Entry
X
19
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Explanation: The project site is not within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation
plan.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
a)
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
X
Explanation: The proposed project site is part of the former Kaiser Shipyard No. 3 and listed on
the National Register of Historic Places. The project site is also part of the Rosie the Riveter
World War II Home Front National Historic Park and is a California Historical Landmark.
Potential impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed project on
existing significant historical resources will be addressed in detail in the EIR.
b)
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
X
Explanation: The project site is within an area of San Francisco Bay that has a high probability
of containing buried archaeological sites or significant artifacts dating to prehistoric Native
American occupation. It is quite possible that the site was occupied or visited at one time by
prehistoric peoples. While the project site has been heavily disturbed as a result of past and
present industrial use, there is some potential for encountering Native American sites within
the confines of the project site. Disturbance of a previously buried and unknown archaeological
site or buried human remains would be considered a significant, adverse impact. Construction
and operational impacts to significant archaeological resources will be addressed in detail in the
EIR.
c)
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
X
Explanation: While the project site has been heavily disturbed as a result of past and present
industrial use, construction activities such as excavation and grading, have the potential to
result in the disturbance of previously undiscovered paleontological resources. Impacts to
potentially unique palentological resources or geologic features will be addressed in the EIR.
d)
Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
X
Explanation: As described above, the project site is within an area of San Francisco Bay that has
a high probability of containing buried archaeological sites dating to prehistoric Native
20
Initial Study
Honda Port of Entry
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
American occupation, which could include human remains. Construction and operational
impacts to significant archaeological resources will be addressed in detail in the EIR.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project:
a)
Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i)
Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist–Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
X
Explanation: The nearest active major fault to the project site is the northern segment of the
Hayward fault, located approximately 4 miles east of the site. The San Andreas Fault is located
approximately 15 miles to the west. The project site is outside the nearest Alquist–Priolo Special
Studies Zone, which is associated with the Hayward fault.2 Due to the distance to the Hayward
fault, there is a less–than–significant potential for surface rupture at the project site.
ii)
Strong seismic ground shaking?
X
Explanation: As is characteristic of the Bay Area, the project site has the potential for strong
seismic ground shaking during an earthquake on one of the major active earthquake faults
within the region. Impacts associated with potentially significant seismic ground shaking will
iii) Seismic–related
liquefaction?
ground
failure,
including
X
Explanation: Given that the project area has the potential for strong seismic ground shaking,
the potential for liquefaction on the project site may also be significant. Impacts associated with
seismic–related ground failure, including liquefaction, will be addressed in detail in the EIR.
iv) Landslides?
X
Explanation: Given that the project site is relatively flat, the potential for landslide is not
considered to be high. However, due to the proximity of the project site to the waterfront,
2
United State Geological Survey, Earthquake Hazards Programs – Northern California. Accessed from the USGS
Website at: http://quake.wr.usgs.gov/.
Initial Study
Honda Port of Entry
21
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
construction and operation of the proposed project could result in landslide movement towards
the San Francisco Bay without proper design and mitigation. Impacts associated with
landslides will be addressed in detail in the EIR.
b)
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
X
Explanation: Construction of the proposed project would require filling of a portion of an
undeveloped wetland area that runs alongside Canal Boulevard. As a result of these activities,
soil erosion rates could be accelerated because of surface disturbance and vegetation removal.
Construction activities conducted when the ground is wet also create the potential for increased
runoff, which in turn, could lead to increased erosion. Impacts associated with soil erosion
and/or the loss of topsoil will be addressed in detail in the EIR.
c)
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on– or off–site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
X
Explanation: As described above, the project site is located in an area with a high potential for
seismic ground shaking, a high liquefaction potential, and the potential for landsliding given
the proximity of the site to the San Francisco Bay. Impacts associated with landslides, lateral
spreading, subsidence, and liquefaction or collapse will be addressed in detail in the EIR.
d)
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18–1–B
of the most current Uniform Building Code (UBC),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
X
Explanation: Expansive soils, soil with a potential to adversely shrink or swell, have the
potential to damage structural foundations, paved roads and streets, and above– and below–
ground utilities. Expansion and contraction soils, depending on the season and amount of
surface water infiltration, could exert enough pressure on structures to result in cracking,
settlement, and uplift. Differential settlement is a concern in areas of new development, where
structures could place loads heavier than soils can tolerate. Development of the proposed
project has to potential to be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18–1–B of the UBC.
This will be addressed in detail in the EIR.
e)
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
X
Explanation: The proposed project would connect to the municipal sewer system and would
not include construction of a septic or alternative wastewater disposal system.
22
Initial Study
Honda Port of Entry
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS —
Would the project:
a)
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
X
Explanation: Due to the long–term historic use of the project site and nearby properties for
industrial and maritime purposes, there is a potential for soil and/or groundwater
contamination under areas that would be excavated to construct the proposed PPMT rail yard
and other rail improvements. Exposure of contaminants currently sealed by asphalt or concrete
pavements could result in adverse effects on construction workers, facility workers, and
members of the public. Also, Canal Boulevard is currently used by tanker trucks carrying
petroleum products, and any project activities that would affect existing trucks could have the
potential for a significant hazard to the public. These issues and other potential hazards will be
b)
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
X
Explanation: The construction and operation of the proposed project could create an additional
significant hazard to the public and/or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
This will be addressed in detail in the EIR.
c)
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one–
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
X
Explanation: Construction and operation of the proposed project could increase the transport of
materials generally regarded as hazardous that are used in construction activities.
Transportation to and from the project site could pass within a quarter–mile of an existing or
proposed school. The proposed project also has the potential to increase the emissions of
criteria pollutants in the vicinity of the project site both short term and long term. This will be
d)
Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
Initial Study
Honda Port of Entry
X
23
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Explanation: Given the past and present use of the site for marine industrial purposes, and the
historic contamination identified on a portion of the project site which has now been sealed and
remediated, the potential for past and present on–site hazardous materials contamination is
potentially significant. This will be addressed in detail in the EIR.
e)
For a project within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working
in the project area?
X
Explanation: The project site is not within two miles of a public airport.
f)
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
X
Explanation: The project site is not within two miles of a private airport.
g)
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
X
Explanation: The proposed project would not permanently impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan
adopted by any local service providers.
h)
Expose people or structures to significant risk of loss,
injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
X
Explanation: The project site is not located within an area considered to have a substantial
wildland or forest fire risk.3
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would the project:
a)
3
24
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
X
California Department of Forestry, Contra Costa County Natural Hazard Disclosure (Fire), 2006. Accessed from the
CDF Website at: http://www.fire.ca.gov/ab6/nhd07.pdf
Initial Study
Honda Port of Entry
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Explanation: Construction and operation of the proposed project could result in increased
levels of water pollution emanating from project facilities. Specifically, construction activities
such as excavation and grading may result in disturbance of soils and sediments that could be
carried into the City’s drainage system during storm events. Additionally, accidental
discharges of construction and operational fuels, oils, hydraulic fluid, grease, (e.g., from
construction equipment) and other hazardous substances could contaminate stormwater flows,
resulting in a reduction in stormwater quality onsite or downstream of the project area. This
will be addressed in detail in the EIR.
b)
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre–existing nearby wells would drop to a level
that would not support existing land uses or planned
uses for which permits have been granted)?
X
Explanation: Conversion of natural and other non–paved surfaces to pavement, buildings,
roadways, and other impervious surfaces can result in a decrease in the amount of rainwater
that can replenish groundwater in those areas. Accordingly, increasing the cover of impervious
surfaces can, in some cases, cause a significant reduction in groundwater recharge, resulting in
significant impacts to groundwater quantity or quality. The proposed project would include
construction of a minimal amount of new impervious surfaces and the reconfiguration of
existing impervious surfaces. Water for the project would be provided by the East Bay
Municipal Utility District and groundwater supplies would not be used for development.
Therefore, the proposed project is not likely to result in significant impacts to groundwater
supply or recharge given the existing development of the project site.
c)
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the course
of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on– or off–site?
X
Explanation: Construction of the proposed project would result in the creation of a small
amount of new impervious surfaces. Impervious surfaces do not permit natural infiltration of
stormwater runoff and result in increased discharge of stormwater runoff to drainage facilities.
Increased runoff from the new impervious surfaces could cause additional erosion or siltation
both on–site and off–site. This will be addressed in detail in the EIR.
d)
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the course
of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on– or off–site?
Initial Study
Honda Port of Entry
X
25
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Explanation: As described above, construction of the proposed project would result in the
creation of a small amount of new impervious surfaces which cause a negligible increase in the
discharge of stormwater runoff to on– and off–site drainage facilities. Any limited increase in
runoff from the new impervious surfaces would not be expected to cause flooding on or off the
site. This will nonetheless be addressed in the EIR.
e)
Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
X
Explanation: As described above, the majority of the project site is covered with structures and
impervious surfaces. Although a small amount of new impervious surfaces would be created
as a result of the proposed project, the proposed project is not anticipated to substantially
increase stormwater flows beyond existing conditions.
f)
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
X
Explanation: New impervious surfaces created as a result of the proposed project, and the
increased use of the project site may result in an increased accumulation of oils, sediments,
brake dust, and other potential water pollutants. During storm events, these pollutants would
be carried by runoff and potentially discharged into downstream receiving waters, resulting in
increased water pollution. This will be addressed in detail in the EIR.
g)
Place housing within a 100–year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
X
Explanation: The construction of new housing is not a component of the proposed project.
h)
Place within a 100–year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
X
Explanation: The project site does not lie within a 100–year flood plain as indicated on a FEMA
Flood Zone Hazards Map.4
i)
4
26
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as
a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
X
Contra Costa County, “Contra Costa County Flood Data,” 2008. Obtained from the Contra Costa County GIS
Resource (Updated December 2007) at: http://www.ccmap.us/gis/.
Initial Study
Honda Port of Entry
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Explanation: The project site does not lie within a dam failure inundation area.5
j)
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
X
Explanation: The San Francisco Bay, specifically the project site, has historically not been
subject to seiche or tsunami events.6 Given the geographic location of the project site which is
sheltered by substantial land mass to the southwest, namely Angel Island and the North Bay,
the potential for large wave activity at the project site as a result of a tsunami is not anticipated.
Potential hazards from mudslides would not be significant due to the flat topography of the site
and because the site is not located downslope of a substantial mudflow source.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the project:
a)
Physically divide an established community?
X
Explanation: The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing site configuration
and would have no potential to physically divide an established community.
b)
Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purposed of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
X
Explanation: A policy consistency analysis will be preformed for the proposed project and
include a thorough review of all relevant planning documents and zoning regulations.
Discussion of the consistency of the proposed project with all applicable planning and zoning
polices will be provided in the EIR.
c)
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
X
Explanation: There is no adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation
plan applicable to the project site.
5
6
Ibid.
West Coast and Alaska Tsunami Warning Center Tsunami, West Coast Tsunami Catalogue, Accessed January 2008
from the WCATWC Website at: http://wcatwc.arh.noaa.gov/web_tsus/pastaor_tsunamis.htm.
Initial Study
Honda Port of Entry
27
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
a)
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
X
Explanation: There are no active mines or sources of mineral extraction on the project site as
identified by the City of Richmond General Plan.7 Therefore, implementation of the proposed
project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource and would not
result in the loss of availability of a regional and statewide mineral of importance. This issue
will not be addressed further in the EIR.
b)
Result in the loss of availability of a locally–important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
X
Explanation: As described above, there are no active mines or sources of mineral extraction on
the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of
availability of mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or
other land use plan. This issue will not be addressed further in the EIR.
XI. NOISE — Would the project result in:
a)
Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
X
Explanation: Construction and operation of the proposed project have the potential to result in
a significant short–term and long–term increase in ship, rail, truck, and automobile traffic which
could result in an increase in ambient noise levels that could potentially exceed noise standards
adopted by the City of Richmond. This will be addressed in The EIR.
b)
Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
X
Explanation: As described above, construction and operation of the proposed project has the
potential to result in a significant short–term and long–term increase in ship, rail, truck, and
automobile traffic which could result in an increase of groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels in excess of existing conditions. This will be addressed in The EIR.
7
28
City of Richmond, City of Richmond General Plan, 1994, adopted August 2004.
Initial Study
Honda Port of Entry
Potentially
Significant
Impact
c)
A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
Explanation: As described above, construction and operation of the proposed project has the
potential to result in a significant short–term and long–term increase in ship, rail, truck and
automobile traffic which could result in an increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity in excess of existing conditions. This will be discussed further in The EIR.
d)
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
X
Explanation: Construction of the proposed project has the potential to result in temporary
and/or periodic increases in ambient noise levels above existing conditions. This will be
discussed further in The EIR.
e)
For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
X
Explanation: The project site is not within two miles of a public airport.
f)
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise levels?
X
Explanation: As described above, the project site is not within two miles of a private airport.
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project:
a)
Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
X
Explanation: The proposed project is not anticipated to induce substantial growth locally and
regionally and necessitate the need for new residential housing. The proposed project would
create approximately 120 permanent new jobs to process imported Hondas. Although work by
longshoremen and truck drivers is expected to be done by the existing labor pool, a limited
number of new jobs (most likely under 50) could be created through the implementation of the
project. It is expected that the majority of the new facility employees would be existing
Initial Study
Honda Port of Entry
29
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
residents of the City of Richmond or elsewhere in Contra Costa County or neighboring
counties. (Truck drivers and longshoremen would likely come from a greater geographical
area.) As of November 2007, Contra Costa County had a 4.9 percent unemployment rate, or
26,100 unemployed individuals. In Contra Costa County there are approximately 11,503 vacant
residential units and 1,506 vacant residential units available in the City of Richmond.8 It is
assumed that the existing labor force and the available vacant housing stock would adequate to
accommodate the nominal increase in new jobs the project would bring into the region.
Implementation of the proposed project would not directly or indirectly induce substantial
population growth within the region. This issue will not be addressed further in the EIR.
b)
Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
X
Explanation: The proposed project is located on property that is exclusively used for industrial
related activities; no residential uses are located on the project site. The project would therefore
not displace any existing housing or necessitate the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere. This issue will not be addressed further in the EIR.
c)
Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
X
Explanation: The proposed project would not displace substantial numbers of people
necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The proposed project is
located on property that is exclusively used for industrial related activities. Construction of the
project would not displace employees or require the demolition of housing and therefore would
not require people to relocate, potentially necessitating the need for the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere. This issue will not be addressed further in the EIR.
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the project result
in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for any of the following
public services:
a)
8
30
Fire protection?
X
California Economic Development Department, “California Labor Market Information,” 2007. Accessed from the
EDD Website at: http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/.
Initial Study
Honda Port of Entry
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Explanation: Fire response for the project site would be provided by the Richmond Fire
Department. Richmond Fire Personnel are assigned to seven stations throughout the city. All
personnel are trained to the level of Emergency Medical Technician – Defibrillation (EMT–D).
The Operations Division is divided into three platoons which staff the eight companies. There
are seven engine companies and one Truck Company. There are also two adaptive response
trucks which are located at Stations 68 and 71. Special resources include a full Hazardous
Materials Response Team, two Rescue Units and an Air Unit. The first–response station to the
project site would be Station No. 67, located at 1131 Cutting Boulevard, located approximately
2.5 miles northeast of the project site .9
The City of Richmond has adopted Public Facility Impact Fees. These fees pay for major public
infrastructure improvements and are levied on new development. The fees pay for off–site
road improvements, traffic signals, fire and police facilities, and park and recreation facilities.
The Public Facility Impact Fee for fire facilities is $135 per 1,000 square feet of new industrial
and warehouse development.10
Because the development of the proposed project constitutes a reconfiguration and
redevelopment of existing industrial uses, rather than new development, it is not anticipated
that the demand for fire service as a result of the proposed project would substantially increase
over levels not already planned for. Furthermore, the Public Facility Impact Fee required by the
City of Richmond would further reduce the impact of the proposed project on the City Fire
Department. This issue will not be addressed further in the EIR.
b)
Police protection?
X
Explanation: Police protection is provided to the site by the Richmond Police Department. The
project site is located in the Southern Police District, Beat 1. Beat 1 is assigned 1 captain, two
lieutenants, and 7 beat officers.
The proposed project has the potential to incrementally increase emergency calls to the Police
Department in response to property crime, potential robberies, and other crimes typically
associated with industrial development. However, it is not anticipated that the proposed project
would generate and attract additional crime to the area.11
As with fire protection and other public services, the City of Richmond has adopted a Public
Facility Impact Fee to address the impact of new development on public services. The Public
Facility Impact Fee for police facilities is $80 per 1,000 square feet for industrial and warehouse
development.12 Payment of the Public Facility Impact Fee by the applicant would reduce impact
of the proposed project on police protection. Furthermore, because the development of the
proposed project constitutes a reconfiguration and redevelopment of existing industrial uses,
rather than new development, it is not anticipated that the demand for police service as a result
9
10
11
12
City of Richmond, City of Richmond Fire Department Data, Accessed January 2008 from the City of Richmond
Website at: http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/index.asp?NID=79.
City of Richmond, “City of Richmond Proposed Master Fee Schedule,” January 2008.
City of Richmond, City of Richmond Police Department Data, Accessed January 2008 from the City of Richmond
Website at: http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/index.asp?NID=82.
City of Richmond, “City of Richmond Proposed Master Fee Schedule,” January 2008.
Initial Study
Honda Port of Entry
31
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
of the proposed project would substantially increase over levels not already planned for. This
issue will not be addressed further in the EIR.
c)
Schools?
X
Explanation: As described in the Population and Housing discussion above, the proposed
project is not anticipated to induce substantial growth locally and regionally. Given the existing
available labor force, it is assumed that the majority of new employees would come from
surrounding communities and a significant increase in school enrollment resulting from new
families moving into the area is not anticipated. However, some families may relocate from
outside of the area. This could nominally increase the number of students in local schools. This
would be a significant impact if the local schools lack the capacity and staff to serve additional
students.
Data obtained from the 2001–02 through 2006–07 school years has shown that enrollment in the
West Contra Costa Unified School District (WCCUSD), the district that serves the project area,
has declined steadily over that period by nearly 5,000 students.13 As a result of declining
enrollment, the average daily attendance (ADA) has also dropped. A drop in the ADA causes
the income the district receives from the State to fall. In the case of the WCCUSD, this has
resulted in a loss of more than $2.9 million dollars in the 2006–07 school year alone. Because of
the nominal increase in new students expected to result with the development of the proposed
project and the declining enrollment trend within the WCCUSD, adverse effects on local school
enrollment are not anticipated.
Development impact fees and property tax revenues typically address impacts to school
districts. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65995, school districts are authorized to levy
fees on new commercial–industrial development to fund the “construction or reconstruction of
school facilities” necessary to accommodate the students from new development. For the
construction of any new commercial or industrial facility, thirty–one cents ($0.31) per square
foot of chargeable covered and enclosed space may be levied. "Chargeable covered and
enclosed space," for this purpose, means the covered and enclosed space determined to be
within the perimeter of a commercial or industrial structure, not including any storage areas
incidental to the principal use of the site (Govt. Code §65995(b)(2)). Because the proposed
project would not result in the creation of new enclosed space, it is not expected to be subject to
the school impact fees. However, as noted above, the project is not expected to adversely affect
the WCCUSD, and no mitigation would be required. This issue will not be addressed further in
the EIR.
d)
13
32
Parks?
X
West Contra Costa County Unified School District 2006–2007 Budget Update. Accessed January 2008 from the
WCCUSD
Website
at:
http://www.wccusd.k12.ca.us/Fiscal/PDF/budget_updates/2006/Current_financial_picture_040407.pdf.
Initial Study
Honda Port of Entry
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Explanation: As described in the Population and Housing discussion above, the proposed
project is not anticipated to induce substantial growth locally and regionally. As a result, a
significant increase in the demand for new parks and expanded park maintenance in the region
is not anticipated. This issue will not be addressed further in the EIR.
e)
Other public facilities?
X
Explanation: No impacts to public facilities other than those already addressed in the previous
discussion are anticipated. In addition, developer impact fees required by the City of Richmond
are in place to mitigate the cost of public service needs of new development and would further
reduce the impacts on public services to a less than significant level. The project’s effects on
utilities such as water, sewer, and transportation are addressed below.
XIV. RECREATION —
a)
Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated?
X
Explanation: As described above under Population and Housing and Public Services, the
proposed project would not substantially increase the population and increase the demand for
parks and other recreational facilities. The project could result in the increased use of existing
parks and other recreational facilities, given the improvements proposed for a portion of the
San Francisco Bay Trail adjacent to the project site. However, this increased access and
potential use is envisioned in the overall planning for the San Francisco Bay Trail, as well as
locally by the Trails for Richmond Action Committee (TRAC). The proposed improvements
and increased access would be considered a beneficial impact.
b)
Does the project include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
X
Explanation: The proposed project would include improvements to a portion of the San
Francisco Bay Trail along Canal Boulevard. The grading, erosion, and sedimentation controls
that would apply to the project as a whole, described in the Soils, Seismicity, and Geology
discussion will be discussed further in the EIR.
Initial Study
Honda Port of Entry
33
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the project:
a)
Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume–to–
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
X
Explanation: Construction and operation of the proposed project may result in a significant
short–term and long–term increase in truck and automobile traffic on area roadways. This will
b)
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
X
Explanation: As described above, construction and operation of the proposed project could
result in a significant short term and long term increase in truck and automobile traffic on area
roadways which may result in an individual or cumulative increase in the level–of–service
standard designated by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority for affected roadways. This
will be addressed in detail in the EIR.
c)
Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks?
X
Explanation: The proposed project would not involve aircraft, nor would the project structures
intrude into aircraft flight paths or air traffic spaces. Therefore, the proposed project would
have no impact on air traffic patterns that results in substantial safety risks. No mitigation is
required.
d)
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
Explanation: The use of large trucks during construction and operation of the proposed project
could affect road conditions on the designated haul routes by increasing the rate of road wear.
The increased road wear could result in a significant increase in hazards without the
incorporation of appropriate mitigation. This potential impact will be evaluated in the EIR.
e)
34
Result in inadequate emergency access?
X
Initial Study
Honda Port of Entry
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Explanation: Construction activities could affect access for emergency vehicles traveling to or in
the vicinity of the project site. Construction within or across streets, and temporary
modification to travel lanes, could result in delays for emergency vehicle access in the vicinity
of the project site. In addition, access to driveways and to cross streets in the construction area
could be temporarily blocked due to construction activities. This could be an inconvenience to
some and a significant problem for others, particularly emergency service providers (e.g., police
and fire). This will be addressed in detail in the EIR.
f)
Result in inadequate parking capacity?
X
Explanation: Construction activities would intermittently and temporarily generate demand for
parking spaces for construction worker vehicles potentially on and off the project site.
Implementation of the proposed project would create an additional demand for parking to
accommodate the longshoreman, truck drivers, and other employees hired to staff the project.
While the proposed project does incorporate additional parking into the design, the increase in
short–term and long–term parking demand is potentially significant and will be discussed in
the EIR.
g)
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
X
Explanation: Construction and operation of the proposed project could result in both
temporary and permanent disruptions to transit service in the project area as a result in the
increase in area roadway traffic. However, the project would have no impact on adopted
policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Impacts to transit service in
the project area will be discussed in detail in the focused EIR.
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the project:
a)
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
the
X
Explanation: The wastewater treatment plant that would serve the project site is permitted by
the Regional Water Quality Control Board and effluent from the plant is regularly monitored to
ensure that water quality standards are not violated.
b)
Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
Initial Study
Honda Port of Entry
X
35
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Explanation: Implementation of the proposed project is not expected to increase the demand on
the Richmond Sanitary District beyond their planned service capacity for the area, or result in
the need for expanded wastewater facilities or the construction of new wastewater facilities to
accommodate the proposed project. However, this issue will be evaluated in the EIR.
c)
Require or result in the construction of new stormwater
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
X
Explanation: Implementation of the proposed project would slightly increase the demand on
area stormwater infrastructure as a result of the creation of new impervious surfaces. The
impact of the proposed project on stormwater drainage facilities will be addressed in the EIR.
d)
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
X
Explanation: Similar to the wastewater discussion above, the proposed project is not expected
to increase the demand on the East Bay Municipal Utilities District beyond their planned service
capacity for the area, nor is it expected to result in the need for expanded facilities, or the
construction of new water distribution facilities to accommodate the proposed project.
However, potential impacts on water supply will be addressed in detail in the EIR.
e)
Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand
in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
X
Explanation: As described above, implementation of the proposed project has the potential to
increase the demand on existing wastewater treatment infrastructure which serves the project
site, which may or may not exceed the planned capacity of the facilities provided by Richmond
Sanitary District. The impact of the proposed project on area wastewater treatment capacity
will be addressed in the EIR.
f)
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
X
Explanation: Although construction and operation of the proposed project is unlikely to
increase the demand on the franchise solid waste hauler that serves the project site beyond their
planned capacity, the potential for the proposed project to adversely affect solid waste disposal
will be addressed in the EIR.
36
Initial Study
Honda Port of Entry
Potentially
Significant
Impact
g)
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
Explanation: The proposed project would be required to comply with all laws and regulations
pertaining to solid waste.
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE —
a)
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self–sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
X
Explanation: As discussed the Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology
and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise,
Transportation and Traffic, and Utilities and Service Systems sections of this Initial Study,
construction and operation of the proposed project may result in potentially significant impacts
that may degrade the quality of the environment. These issues will be discussed in the EIR.
b)
Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
X
Explanation: Cumulative environmental effects are multiple individual effects that, when
considered together are considerable or compound or increase other environmental impacts.
The individual effects may result from a single project or a number of separate projects and may
occur at the same place and point in time or at different locations and over extended periods of
time. This Initial Study has identified potentially significant impacts associated with Air
Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Transportation and Traffic, and Utilities and
Service Systems, which when cumulatively considered with other proposed projects, may result
in a significant environmental impact. This issue will be addressed in the EIR.
c)
Does the project have environmental effects that will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Initial Study
Honda Port of Entry
X
37
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Explanation: The proposed project may have environmental effects that would cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The EIR will assess
the potential impacts related to Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology
and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise,
Transportation and Traffic, and Utilities and Service Systems. These impacts are identified in
this Initial Study as potentially significant.
REPORT PREPARATION—
This Initial Study was prepared by Douglas Herring & Associates, with support from the City
of Richmond Planning Department, the Port of Richmond, and Environmental Science
Associates (ESA). The complete project team included:
38
Project Manager:
Doug Herring, AICP, Principal
Douglas Herring & Associates
1331 Linda Vista Drive
El Cerrito, CA 94530
Initial Study:
Paul Miller, Senior Project Manager
Paul Garcia, Senior Associate
Environmental Science Associates
8950 Cal Center Drive
Building 3, Suite 300
Sacramento, California 95826
Initial Study
Honda Port of Entry
Appendix B
NOP Comment Letters
Appendix C
Intersection Level of Service Calculations
Appendix D
Air Quality Analysis Methodology and Assumptions
D. AIR QUALITY METHODOLOGY AND
ASSUMPTIONS
D.1 METHODOLOGY
In general, emissions were estimated using the activity and operational information described
within the following appendix and emission factors, which are measures of emissions that
express the mass of emissions in terms of a unit of activity. For example, emission factors for
marine vessels may be expressed in terms of grams of emissions (of a particular pollutant) per
horsepower-hour. Horsepower-hours are the product of in-use horsepower times hours of
operation times a load factor.
Emissions can be calculated, then, by multiplying hours of
operation per year (activity data) by in-use horsepower (operational information) by a load
factor by an emission factor (such as pounds per horsepower-hour) to provide an estimate of
emissions in pounds of emissions per day or tons of emissions per year.
The actual calculations are often more complex than this example, because such parameters as
in use horsepower must be estimated as part of the calculations. In addition, the emission
factors often vary depending on equipment-specific factors such as the model year and the
accumulated hours of use.
The methods of calculating emissions are more completely
described in the sections covering each source category.
Auto Carrier Marine Vessels
For auto carrier marine vessels, emission factors were developed by review of the literature and
information specific to the proposed project. Emissions were calculated by multiplying the
emission factors by vessel-specific activity parameters such as in-use horsepower and hours of
operation. Calculations were made to adequately characterize the complicated activities of
marine vessels (e.g., separate calculations were made for vessel transit, maneuvering, and
hotelling activities for propulsion engines, auxiliary engines, and auxiliary boilers). The results
of all the calculations were summed to produce the overall emission estimates.
Appendix D – Air Quality
D–1
Tugboats
Emission factors were developed for tugboat engines by review of the literature and
information specific to the proposed project. Emissions were calculated by multiplying the
emission factors by the appropriate measure of activity (such as annual hours of operation).
Locomotives
Railroad operations are typically described in terms of two different types of operation, line
haul and switching. Line haul operations involve long-distance transportation between the Port
and points across the country whereas switching is the local movement of railcars to prepare
them for line haul transportation or to distribute them to destination terminals upon their
arrival in port.
The types of information available for these two types of activity differs – for the on-port
switching locomotives, information on each locomotive and its activity (e.g., fuel use and
throttle notch setting frequency) can be used to estimate emissions, whereas for the line haul
locomotives the information is more general (e.g., in terms of fuel use per ton of cargo and total
tons of cargo carried). Published emissions information for switch and line haul locomotive
operations in both throttle notch and fuel consumption modes along with facility operational
data was used to estimate emissions.
Auto Carrier Trucks and Motor Vehicles
For estimating auto carrier truck and motor vehicle emissions, activity information related to
the number of truck, employee and auto shuttling trips and the estimated miles traveled within
the air district were used to determine the emissions. This combination of the vehicles trips and
miles traveled is known as vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
Emissions were determined based on the speed-specific emission factor (typically in grams per
mile) derived from CARB’s emission factor model EMFAC 2007 for the VMT.
D–2
TABLE D-1
OPERATIONAL ACTIVITY ASSUMPTIONS
Activity
Existing Glovis
Proposed
Hondas
Marine Vessels per year
75
150
Marine Vessel per day (worst-case)
1
2
Vehicles Distributed per year
96,000
246,000
--
80,000
Locomotives
Vehicles Distributed via inbound per year
Days of Operation
300
300
Vehicles Distributed via outbound per year
78,000
193,000
Rail cars per year
6,500
22,750
Rail cars per day (worst-case)
21
87
Vehicles per rail car
12
12
18,000
133,000
Days of Operation
350
350
Vehicles Distributed per day (worst-case)
56
416
Vehicles per truck
9
9
Auto Carrier Trucks
Trucks per year
2,000
14,778
Trucks per day (worst-case)
6
46
Truck round trip within BAAQMD (miles)
100
100
Shuttling of Automobiles
96,000
Days of Operation
350
Vehicles Distributed per day (worst-case)
300
4
Operations from San Diego
Vehicles Distributed via truck per year
35,000
Days of Operation
350
Vehicles Distributed via truck per day
110
Vehicles per truck
9
Trucks per year
3,890
Trucks per day
12
100
Employee Vehicles
Employees per day
150
350
Employee round trip within BAAQMD (miles)
30
30
Source: Project Description and Response to Data Request dated November 28, 2007.
D–3
D.2 OPERATIONAL ACTIVITY ASSUMPTIONS
From an air quality perspective, the following project elements (Table D-1) and assumptions are
notable and were used in the development of the air emissions inventory. The table presents
the activity data for the existing Glovis operations and the proposed Honda operations. Of
note, the proposed Honda project would eliminate the shuttling of automobiles and truck
operations from San Diego.
D.3 EMISSION FACTORS AND CALCULATION ASSUMPTIONS
MARINE VESSELS
In developing an activity-based emissions inventory for auto carrier marine vessels, emissions
are estimated as a function of vessel power demand (expressed in kW-hrs) multiplied by an
emission factor, where the emission factor is expressed in terms of grams per kilowatt-hour
(g/kW-hr). PM10 is assumed to be 100 percent of PM. PM2.5 was estimated to be 80 percent1 of
PM10. The emission factor is dependent on the fuel used; an average sulfur content of 2.7
percent2 (residual oil) was assumed.
Main engine emission factors (Table D-2) were then applied to the various activity data (Table
D-3). A main engine of 17,500 horsepower (12,790 kilowatts)3 was assumed.
1
2
3
Starcrest Consulting Group, LLC, Port of Long Beach Air Emissions Inventory – 2005, September 2007.
Ibid.
Ibid.
D–4
TABLE D-2
EMISSION FACTORS FOR MAIN ENGINE
Slow Cruise
Emission Factor
(g/kW-hr)
Maneuvering
Emission Factor
(g/kW-hr)
Pollutant
Cruise
Emission
Factor
(g/kW-hr)
CO
1.05
2.79
5.59
HC
0.093
0.406
1.148
NOx
10.6
11.2
12.6
PM10/PM2.5
0.263
0.291
0.357
SO2
14.31
16.20
19.22
CO2
704
796
943
SOURCE: U.S. EPA Analysis of Commercial Marine Vessels Emissions and Fuel
Consumption Data, February 2000.
TABLE D-3
OPERATIONAL ASSUMPTIONS FOR MAIN ENGINE
Parameters
Cruise
Slow Cruise
Maneuvering
Load Factor
0.8
0.3
0.15
Hours per Operation
3
1
1
Vessels typically never use the total auxiliary engine installed power when at sea, during
hotelling, and during maneuvering. This is due to the design of the auxiliary system and the
need for some level of redundancy in case of equipment failures. For each mode and vessel
type, a different number of engines may be used and at varying loads depending on several
factors, such as temperature. Hotelling load is primarily what is needed to meet the power
needs of the lights, heating/ventilation/air conditioning (HVAC) systems, communications,
computers, ship cranes, pumps, reefer load, and various other power demands while the vessel
is at dock. Maneuvering is generally the highest auxiliary load mode as the bow thrusters need
to be available and used in spurts. The fairway or open sea is generally where the lowest
auxiliary loads are found as additional auxiliary power is not required for maneuvering and
D–5
many vessels have shaft generators and exhaust turbine generators that help provide power to
the ship in an effort to reduce operating costs through lower fuel consumption4.
Auxiliary engine emission factors (Table D-4) were then applied to the various activity data
(Table D-5). Auxiliary engines (total of three) of 1,500 horsepower (1,096 kilowatts)5 each were
assumed. Three engines are operational within the sea load and maneuvering load, while one
engine is operational during the hotelling period6. The emission factor is dependent on the fuel
used; an average sulfur content of 2.5 percent was assumed.
TABLE D-4
EMISSION FACTORS FOR AUXILARY ENGINES
Maneuvering
Emission Factor
(g/kW-hr)
Hotelling
Emission Factor
(g/kW-hr)
Pollutant
Sea Load
Emission
Factor
(g/kW-hr)
CO
3.35
1.86
3.35
HC
0.534
0.221
0.534
NOx
11.5
10.9
11.5
PM10/PM2.5
0.302
0.275
0.302
SO2
15.56
14.07
15.56
CO2
825
747
825
TABLE D-5
OPERATIONAL ASSUMPTIONS FOR AUXILARY ENGINES
Parameters
Sea Load
Maneuvering
Hotelling
Load Factor
0.25
0.45
0.25
Hours per Operation
3
1
8
In addition to the auxiliary engines that are used to generate electricity for on-board uses, most
marine vessels have one or more boilers used for fuel heating and for producing hot water.
Boilers are typically not used during transit at sea since vessels are equipped with an exhaust
gas recovery system or “economizer” that uses exhaust for heating purposes and therefore the
boilers are not needed when the main engines are used. Boilers are used at reduced speeds,
4
5
6
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
D–6
such as during maneuvering and when the vessel is at Port and the main engines are shut
down7.
Auxiliary boiler emission factors (Table D-6) were then applied to the various activity data
(Table D-7). Auxiliary boiler of 0.113 tons of fuel per hour8 was assumed.
TABLE D-6
EMISSION FACTORS FOR AUXILARY BOILER
Emission Factor
(lb/ton fuel)
Pollutant
CO
9.20
HC
0.760
NOx
24.6
PM10/PM2.5
3.020
SO2
108.00
TABLE D-7
OPERATIONAL ASSUMPTIONS FOR AUXILARY BOILERS
Parameters
Slow Cruise
Maneuvering
Hours per Operation
1
1
Tugboats
Tugboats are used to propel auto carrier marine vessels to and from the berth. Emissions are
based on an average tugboat engine size of 2,000 horsepower (1,493 kilowatts) and a load factor
of 35 percent9. Tugboats are assumed to be in cruise mode prior to arrival and after departure,
in slow cruise, and maneuvering mode for 80, 10, and 10 percent, respectively, of their
operating time within the BAAQMD. Two tugs are assumed to operate for each auto carrier at
one hour each. PM10 is assumed to be 100 percent of PM. PM2.5 was estimated to be 80
percent10 of PM10. The emission factor is dependent on the fuel used; an average sulfur content
7
8
9
10
Ibid.
Ibid.
Detroit Diesel specification 4000 Series
Starcrest Consulting Group, LLC, op. cit.
D–7
of 1.5 percent11 (marine diesel oil) was assumed. Tugboat emission factors (Table D-8) were
then applied to the various activity data.
TABLE D-8
EMISSION FACTORS FOR TUGBOATS
Pollutant
Emission Factor
(g/kW-hr)
CO
2.39
HC
0.322
NOx
11.1
PM10/PM2.5
0.284
SO2
8.76
CO2
775
LOCOMOTIVES
Locomotives operate differently from other types of mobile sources with respect to how they
transmit power from engine to wheels. While most mobile sources use a physical coupling such
as a transmission to transfer power from the engine to the wheels, a locomotive’s engine turns a
generator or alternator powering an electric motor that, in turn, powers the locomotive’s
wheels. The physical connection of a typical mobile source means that the engine’s speed is
dictated by the vehicle’s speed through a fixed set of gear ratios, resulting in the highly
transient operating conditions (particularly engine speed and load) that characterize mobile
source operations.
In contrast, the locomotive’s engine and drive system operate more
independently, such that the engine can be operated at a particular speed without respect to the
speed of the locomotive itself12.
This allows operation under more steady-state load and speed conditions, and as a result
locomotives have been designed to operate in a series of discrete throttle settings called notches,
ranging from notch positions one through eight, plus an idle position.
Many locomotives also have a feature known as dynamic braking, in which the electric drive
engine operates as a generator to help slow the locomotive, with the resistance-generated power
being dissipated as heat. While the engine is not generating motive power under dynamic
11
12
Ibid.
Ibid.
D–8
braking, it is generating power to run cooling fans, so this operating condition is somewhat
different from idling. Switch engines typically do not feature dynamic braking13.
Locomotive switching activities consist of:
•
Breaking up inbound trains and sorting railcars into contiguous fragments, and delivering
the fragments to terminals.
•
Delivering empty container flat cars to terminals.
•
Delivering rail cars to non-container facilities, and removing previously delivered rail cars.
•
Rearranging full and empty railcars to facilitate loading by a terminal.
•
Picking up outbound containers in less than full train configuration and transporting them
to a yard for assembly into full trains – to be transported out of the Port by one of the line
haul railroads.
Line haul locomotives are typically operated in groups of two to five units, with three or four
units being most common, depending on the power requirements of the specific train being
pulled and the horsepower capacities of available locomotives. Thus, two higher-horsepower
locomotives may be able to pull a train that would take three units with lower power outputs.
Locomotives operated in sets are connected such that every engine in the set is operated in
unison by an engineer in one of the locomotives. Two line haul engines were assumed to
operate simultaneously.
The specific activities included in the emission estimates include movement within Port
boundaries or directly to or from port-owned properties (such as terminals and on-port rail
yards). Rail movements that occur solely outside the port, such as switching at off-port rail
yards, and movements that do not either initiate or end at a Port property are not included in
the activities for which emissions are presented.
For locomotives, emissions are estimated as a function of power demand (expressed in hp-hrs)
multiplied by an emission factor, where the emission factor is expressed in terms of grams per
horsepower-hour (g/hp-hr).
The emission factors and other basis of emission estimates,
including operational assumptions are detailed in Attachment A.
MOTOR VEHICLES
Emission factors (Table D-9) for auto carrier and automobiles were obtained from the CARB
EMFAC2007 emissions model.
13
Ibid.
D–9
TABLE D-9
AUTO CARRIERS TRUCKS AND AUTOMOBILE EMISSION FACTORS (grams/mi)
Source
Auto
Carrier
Auto
VOC
CO
NOx
1.687
0.131
8.055
3.461
18.266
0.315
SO2
PM10
PM2.5
0.981
0.031
0.865
0.007
0.021
0.003
CO2
2183.160
345.052
SOURCE: California Air Resources Board EMFAC2007.
D–10
ATTACHMENT A
LOCOMOTIVE EMISSION ASSUMPTIONS AND CALCULATIONS
D–11
D–12
MEMORANDUM
To:
Dave Seep, BNSF
From:
Chris Lindhjem, ENVIRON
Date:
February 29, 2008
Subject:
Richmond Car Terminal Train Movements – Draft 2
The analysis of the Richmond Car Terminal rail movements for the Proposed Honda / Glovis
operation is presented here. Based on the project’s forecasted throughput, the number and time
of train movements per day for six days a week were provided along with an expectation of idle
time between each movement. BNSF expects to perform these movements with one (three
generator set engines) 2,100 horsepower NREC, locomotive. The current operations are served
using Tier 0 GP-35 or GP-9 switching engines.
The forecasted locomotive movements include loaded and unloaded with and without cars, so
could demand any sort of power levels or notch settings from the locomotive. BNSF already
conducted an analysis of the notch settings for similar power locomotives at the Richmond yard
using event recorder data. The locomotives already analyzed were performing similar tasks in
cutting, assembling, and moving car carrier trains from the Richmond yard. Therefore, the duty
cycle for the proposed facility was derived from the data presented by BNSF for the Richmond
yard (http://www.arb.ca.gov/railyard/hra/env_rich_ei_122006.pdf)
A new type of locomotive has been purchased for the Richmond yard and will be used for the
proposed facility. This locomotive uses three diesel engines each meeting a more stringent
(lower) emission standard than current locomotives are required. This locomotive uses three
Cummins engines certified to off-road emission standards and is built by the National Railway
Equipment Co. (NREC).
BNSF provided the emission rates for the NREC locomotive engine to be used at this site. Table
1 outlines the emission data for this locomotive as provided by the manufacturer.
D–13
Table 1. NREC generator set locomotive engine emission rates.
Mode / Notch
Idle
DB1
1
2
3
4
5
6
HC
(g/hr)
10.9
10.9
31.7
41.1
44.6
96.6
80.1
154.9
CO
(g/hr)
51.7
51.7
448.2
656.5
285.4
1474.4
774.5
1788.6
NOx
(g/hr)
157.9
157.9
642.9
960.9
2107.7
2423.7
3222.8
4001.9
PM
(g/hr)
6.3
6.3
27.7
25.2
32.8
52.9
48.5
74.8
Fuel
(lb/hr)
14.5
14.5
87.4
148.5
243.3
350.2
414.8
568.2
7
148.9
1370.6
5266.2
78.3
668.8
8
141.4
738.8
6124.7
94.3
756.6
1
– NREC indicated that dynamic braking does not occur, so this mode is estimated at the idle
emission rate.
BNSF currently uses engines similar to the GP-3x engine as outlined in the Richmond yard
report. The emissions for this type of locomotive are provided in Table 2.
Table 2. GP-3x Locomotive emission rates.
Mode / Notch
Idle
DB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
HC
(g/hr)
124.1
269.0
121.5
149.9
188.5
261.3
371.5
468.8
CO
(g/hr)
283.0
699.0
240.0
429.0
430.0
479.0
604.0
926.0
NOx
(g/hr)
1247.0
2803.0
1824.8
4335.7
8137.0
12410.0
16974.0
23232.0
NOx
adjusted
(g/hr)
1184.7
2662.9
1733.5
4118.9
7730.2
11789.5
16125.3
22070.4
PM
(g/hr)
38.0
72.0
31.0
110.0
186.0
212.0
267.0
417.0
PM
adjusted
(g/hr)
38.0
72.0
31.0
110.0
173.2
185.7
227.4
365.6
Fuel
(lb/hr)
32
103
55
137
226
331
442
567
651.6
807.1
1773.0
3973.0
29605.0
34755.0
28124.8
33017.3
463.0
608.0
420.6
551.2
710
854
By statewide agreement
(http://www.arb.ca.gov/railyard/ryagreement/083005mouexecuted.pdf), BNSF will use
ultra-low sulfur (nominally 15 ppm sulfur or 0.0015%) in these engines, which is most likely
California diesel fuel. The emissions with the use of California diesel results in lower
particulate and NOx emissions.
The engine emissions for most locomotives, including the GP-3x emission shown in Table 2,
were generated using an off-road diesel with a fuel sulfur level of 0.3%. The NREC engine
emissions were generated using California diesel because the sales of these engines are
current restricted to California and Texas that use the low sulfur fuel.
Therefore the emissions for the current engines in use in Richmond must be adjusted for the
lower sulfur levels. The fuel sulfur correction methodology described by ARB (2005,
D–14
D. Air Quality Methodology and Assumptions
"Changes to the Locomotive Inventory," prepared by Walter Wong, preliminary draft.
March 16, 2005.) was used to adjust PM emission rates from an average fuel sulfur level of
0.3% to 0.105% using the fuel sulfur – PM relationship equation, A + B * (fuel sulfur, ppm).
The emission reductions calculated for GE and EMD engines shown in Table 3 were applied
to the base emission rates to calculate the emission rates at the in-use fuel sulfur levels. The
GP-3x engine was manufactured by EMD and so those corrections were used. The
adjustment for NOx emissions was recommended as a straight-forward 5% reduction due to
the use of California diesel.
Table 3. Fuel sulfur emission reductions by notch for EMD 2-stroke engines
Notch
B
8
7
6
5
4
3
Fuel Sulfur 0.3% Fuel Sulfur 0.0015%
Reduction
EF (g/hp-hr)
EF (g/hp-hr)
EMD 2-stroke engine
0.3563
0.3932
0.3564845
9.34%
0.284
0.3128
0.284144
9.16%
0.2843
0.3245
0.284501
12.33%
0.2572
0.3022
0.257425
14.82%
0.2629
0.3004
0.2630875
12.42%
0.2635
0.283
0.2635975
6.86%
A
0.0000123
0.0000096
0.0000134
0.000015
0.0000125
0.0000065
The train movements for the existing and proposed operations were provided in terms of
time in motion and at idle. Table 4 shows the activity for the existing operations, and Table
5 shows the proposed operations activity.
Table 4. Existing operations activity summary for inbound and outbound between
Richmond yard and the BNSF Auto loading facility.
Train
Travel
Movement Length Distance
ID
(Ft.)
(Ft.)
1
1700
4500
2
900
1100
3
900
1100
4
100
4500
5
3100
4500
6
1600
1700
7
1600
1700
8
100
4500
Speed
(mph)
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Time per Time in
Move
Motion Idle Time
(sec.)
(sec.)
(sec.)
1002
511
491
487
125
362
487
125
362
1002
511
491
1005
511
494
578
193
385
578
193
385
1002
511
491
OUTBOUND
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1700
900
900
100
3100
1600
1600
100
4500
1100
1100
4500
4500
1700
1700
4500
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
1002
487
487
1002
1005
578
578
1002
511
125
125
511
511
193
193
511
491
362
362
491
494
385
385
491
D–15
Table 5. Proposed operations activity summary for inbound, on dock switch, and outbound
between Richmond yard and the BNSF Auto loading facility.
Train
Movement Length
Travel
ID
(Ft.)
Distance
1
3300
4500
2
1650
1650
3
75
4500
4
1600
4500
5
75
4500
6
2400
4500
7
1200
2300
8
75
4500
9
2400
4500
10
1200
1200
11
75
4500
12
1200
4500
Speed
(mph)
6
6
8
6
8
6
6
8
6
6
8
6
Time per
Move
Time in
Idle Time
(sec.)
Motion (sec.)
(sec.)
751
511
240
428
188
241
624
384
240
751
511
240
624
384
240
751
511
240
501
261
240
624
384
240
751
511
240
376
136
240
624
384
240
751
511
240
FACILITY SWITCHING OPERATIONS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1300
75
1300
2500
75
1300
75
1300
2500
75
1300
75
1400
2750
1400
2625
5375
1400
2750
1400
2625
5375
1400
6300
6
8
6
6
8
6
8
6
6
8
6
8
519
594
519
658
818
519
594
519
658
818
519
897
159
234
159
298
458
159
234
159
298
458
159
537
360
360
360
360
360
360
360
360
360
360
360
360
6
8
6
8
6
8
956
777
956
777
956
777
716
537
716
537
716
537
240
240
240
240
240
240
OUTBOUND OPERATIONS
1
2
3
4
5
6
2000
75
2000
75
2000
75
6300
6300
6300
6300
6300
6300
From the movement estimates, Table 6 shows the time in motion (notch settings) and idle
were calculated for the daily operations from the movement data in Tables 2 and 3.
D–16
Table 6. Summary locomotive operating time for existing and proposed operations.
Operation
Existing
Proposed
Total Time per Day
(hours)
3.41
5.66
Fraction of Time in
Motion
43.7%
57.6%
Fraction of Time at Idle
56.3%
42.4%
The duty cycle for the switching locomotives at Richmond was determined using event
recorder data and presented in a report under a Statewide agreement between California
Air Resources Board (CARB) and the railroads including BNSF. The locomotive during
movements would primarily be in a notch, and idle between movements. So the Richmond
duty cycle in notches other than idle was prorated to represent the duty demanded during
movements. The Richmond duty cycle
(http://www.arb.ca.gov/railyard/hra/env_rich_ei_122006.pdf) is shown in Tables 7 and 8
and the estimated locomotive duty cycle for the existing and proposed duty cycles.
Table 7. Existing operations locomotive duty cycle estimate.
MODE /
NOTCH
Idle
DB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
Richmond
Duty Cycle
59.80%
0.12%
13.45%
13.93%
6.44%
3.12%
1.29%
0.63%
0.24%
1.00%
Prorated
Movement
Duty Cycle
0.00%
0.30%
33.44%
34.63%
16.01%
7.76%
3.21%
1.57%
0.60%
2.49%
Existing Operations
Average Duty Cycle1
56.33%
0.13%
14.60%
15.13%
6.99%
3.39%
1.40%
0.68%
0.26%
1.09%
- Idle time determined from expected idle periods between each movement.
Table 8. Proposed operations locomotive duty cycle estimated.
Mode / Notch
Idle
DB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
Richmond
Duty Cycle
59.80%
0.12%
13.45%
13.93%
6.44%
3.12%
1.29%
0.63%
0.24%
1.00%
Prorated
Movement
Duty Cycle
0.00%
0.30%
33.44%
34.63%
16.01%
7.76%
3.21%
1.57%
0.60%
2.49%
Proposed Operations
Average Duty Cycle1
42.37%
0.17%
19.27%
19.96%
9.23%
4.47%
1.85%
0.90%
0.34%
1.43%
- Idle time determined from expected idle periods between each movement.
Using the duty cycles and time in mode for the existing and proposed facility along with the
per mode emission estimates in Tables 1 and Table 2, the emissions per day were calculated.
The annual emission estimates are shown in Table 9 and used the per day activity
multiplied by 6 days a week for the 52 week year.
D–17
Table 9. Locomotive emission estimates for proposed and existing operations.
Emissions
Grams
per year
Short Tons
per year
EXISTING OPERATIONS USING GP-3X
LOCOMOTIVE
HC
CO
NOx
PM
CO2
Fuel Consumption (gallons)
161,308
392,892
3,507,834
78,594
322,831
N/A
0.18
0.43
3.87
0.09
0.36
14,261
PROPOSED FACILITY USING NREC
GENSET SWITCHER
HC
CO
NOx
PM
CO2
Fuel Consumption (gallons)
57,954
666,829
1,567,658
38,220
657,392
N/A
0.06
0.74
1.73
0.04
0.72
29,040
The existing operation dray or drive cars from the facility to a holding yard and then later
driven onto rail cars. The additional driving in the existing operations has not been
accounted in this analysis.
D–18
ATTACHMENT B
HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS
D–19
D–20
A human health risk assessment (HRA) involves four steps; hazards identification,
exposure assessment, toxicity assessment, and risk characterization. This attachment
describes methodologies and assumptions associated with each of the four steps. This
attachment also provides a listing of key terms and definitions, and a description of
limitations and uncertainties associated with the performance of an HRA.
Significance Threshold
The operation of any project with the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial
levels of TACs 14 (such as DPM) would be deemed to have a potentially significant impact.
More specifically, proposed projects that have the potential to expose the public to TACs in
excess of the following thresholds would be considered to have a significant air quality
impact:
•
Probability of contracting cancer for the Maximally Exposed Individual exceeds 10
in one million people for 70 year exposure.
•
Ground-level concentrations of non-carcinogenic TACs exceed the acceptable health
based concentrations.
Terms and Definitions
As the practice of conducting an HRA is particularly complex and involves concepts that
are not altogether familiar to most people, several terms and definitions are provided below
that are considered essential to the understanding of the approach, methodology and
results:
Acute effect – a health effect (non-cancer) produced within a short period of time (few
minutes to several days) following an exposure to toxic air contaminants (TACs).
Cancer risk – the probability of an individual contracting cancer from a lifetime (i.e.,
70 years) exposure to TACs in the ambient air.
Chronic effect – a health effect (non-cancer) produced from a continuous exposure
occurring over an extended period of time (weeks, months, years).
Criteria air pollutants – a series of common air pollutants regulated by the Federal or
California Clean Air Acts (i.e., CO, NO2 , O3 , particulate matter, etc.).
Hazard Index (HI) – the unitless ratio of an exposure level over the acceptable
reference dose (RfC). The HI should be less than 1.0 and can be applied to multiple
compounds in an additive manner.
Hazard Quotient (HQ) – the unitless ratio of an exposure level over the acceptable
reference dose (RfC). The HQ should be less than 1.0 as applied to individual
compounds.
Toxic air contaminants (TACs) – any air pollutants that can cause health effects in
humans that are not regulated as “criteria” pollutants.
Human Health Effects - comprise disorders such as eye watering, respiratory or heart
ailments, and other (i.e., non-cancer) related diseases.
Health Risk Assessment (HRA) – an analysis designed to predict the generation and
dispersion of TACs in the outdoor environment, evaluate the potential for exposure
14
TACs are airborne substances that are capable of causing short-term (acute) and/or long-term (chronic or
carcinogenic, i.e., cancer causing) adverse human health effects (i.e., injury or illness). The current California
list of TACs includes approximately 200 compounds, including particulate emissions from diesel-fueled
engines.
D–21
of human populations, and to assess and quantify both the individual and
population-wide health risks associated with those levels of exposure.
Incremental – under CEQA, the net difference (or change) in conditions or impacts
when comparing the existing to future year conditions.
Maximum exposed individual (MEI) – an individual assumed to be located at the
point where the highest concentrations of TACs, and therefore, health risks are
predicted to occur.
Non-cancer risks – health risks such as eye watering, respiratory or heart ailments,
and other non-cancer related diseases.
Receptors – the locations where potential health impacts or risks are predicted
(schools, residences and work-sites).
Limitations and Uncertainties
There are also a number of important limitations and uncertainties commonly associated
with a HRA due to the wide variability of human exposures to TACs, the extended
timeframes over which the exposures are evaluated and the inability to verify the results.
Among these challenges are the following:
•
The current guidance and methodologies for modeling TACs and conducting an HRA
are principally intended and designed to assess “stationary point” (i.e., smokestack)
sources of air emissions. By comparison, this analysis is an assemblage of moving (or
“mobile”) “line” sources (i.e., railyard, roadways, and marine vessels) and “area”
sources (i.e., unloading/loading truck lots).
•
The HRA exposure estimates do not take into account that people do not usually
reside at the same location for 70 years and that other exposures (i.e., school
children and workers) are also of much shorter durations than was assumed in this
analysis. Therefore, the results of the HRA are highly overstated for those cases.
•
Other limitations and uncertainties associated with HRAs as identified by the
California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) include: (a.) lack of reliable
monitoring data; (b.) extrapolation of toxicity data in animals to humans; (c.)
estimation errors in calculating TACs emissions; (d.) concentration prediction errors
with dispersion models; and (e.) the variability in lifestyles, fitness and other
confounding factors of the human population.15
Therefore, according to CalEPA guidelines, the results of the HRA should not be interpreted
as the expected rates of cancer or other potential human health effects, but rather as
estimates of potential risk based on current knowledge, a number of highly conservative
assumptions and the best assessment tools presently available.16
Hazards Identification
TAC emissions associated with the proposed project would occur from the following
project activities:
15
16
•
Auto carrier trucks within the loading/unloading area and on local streets, arterials,
and freeways in transit to and from the facility,
•
Rail locomotives during switching and line haul activities,
CalEPA OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots HRA Guidelines, Ibid.
Ibid.
D–22
•
Marine vessels (auto carriers) during hotelling and within ship channel,
•
Tugs assistance of auto carrier during maneuvering to and from the berth area.
The primary TAC of interest within this HRA is diesel particulate matter (DPM), which is
described within the following section.
Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of numerous individual gaseous and particulate
compounds emitted from diesel-fueled combustion engines. DPM is formed primarily
through the incomplete combustion of diesel fuel. DPM is removed from the atmosphere
through physical processes including atmospheric fall-out and washout by rain. Humans
can be exposed to airborne DPM or by deposition on water, soil, and vegetation.
In August 1998, the California Air Resource Board (CARB) identified diesel PM as a TAC.
The CARB developed Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from DieselFueled Engines and Vehicles and Risk Management Guidance for the Permitting of New Stationary
Diesel-Fueled Engines and approved these documents on September 28, 2000. The documents
represent proposals to reduce DPM emissions, with the goal of reducing emissions and the
associated health risk by 75 percent in 2010 and by 85 percent in 2020. The program aims
to require the use of state-of-the-art catalyzed DPM filters and ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel.
In 2001, CARB assessed the state-wide health risks from exposure to diesel exhaust and to
other toxic air contaminants. It is difficult to distinguish the health risks of diesel emissions
from those of other air toxics, since diesel exhaust contains approximately 40 different
TACs. The CARB study detected diesel exhaust by using ambient air carbon soot
measurements as a surrogate for diesel emissions. The study reported that in 2000, the
state-wide average cancer risk from exposure to diesel exhaust was about 540 per million
population as compared to an average total risk for exposure to all ambient air toxics of
760 per million. This estimate, which accounts for about 70 percent of the total risk from
TACs, included both urban and rural areas in the state. The estimate can also be considered
an average worst-case for the state, since it assumes constant exposure to outdoor
concentrations of diesel exhaust and does not account for expected lower concentrations
indoors, where most of time is spent.
Exposure Assessment
Dispersion is the process by which atmospheric pollutants disseminate due to wind and
vertical stability. The results of a dispersion analysis are used to assess pollutant
concentrations at or near an emission source. The results of an analysis allow predicted
concentrations of pollutants to be compared directly to air quality standards and other
criteria such as health risks based on modeled concentrations. Dispersion modeling allows
one to assess future impacts when new state and federal regulations for diesel trucks are
implemented.
A rising pollutant plume reacts with the environment in several ways before it levels off.
First, the plume’s own turbulence interacts with atmospheric turbulence to entrain ambient
air. This mixing process reduces and eventually eliminates the density and momentum
differences that cause the plume to rise. Second, the wind transports the plume during its
rise and entrainment process. Higher winds mix the plume more rapidly, resulting in a lower
final rise. Third, the plume interacts with the vertical temperature stratification of the
atmosphere, rising as a result of buoyancy in the unstable-to-neutrally stratified mixed
layer. However, after the plume encounters the mixing lid and the stable stratified air above,
its vertical motion is dampened.
Dispersion Modeling Approach
Project sources producing DPM emissions include trucks, locomotives, marine vessels, and
tugs. This section presents the methodology used for the dispersion modeling analysis. This
D–23
section addresses all of the fundamental components of an air dispersion modeling analysis
including:
•
Model selection and options
•
Receptor spacing and location
•
Meteorological data
•
Source release characteristics
Air dispersion modeling was performed to estimate the downwind dispersion of DPM
exhaust emissions resulting from transit and maneuvering of Ocean-going Vessels (OGV)
and Harbor Craft (tugboats) associated with the PPMT. A description of the air quality
modeling parameters, including air dispersion model selection, modeling domain, source
exhaust parameters, meteorological data selection, and receptor network, is provided.
The methodology for this analysis followed guidance and procedures within CARB’s Diesel
Particulate Matter Exposure Assessment Study for the Ports of Los Angeles and Long
Beach, dated April 2006 while accounting for site-specific data.
Model Selection and Options
The Industrial Source Complex-3 model (Version 02035) was used for the modeling
analysis. This model is an appropriate choice for this analysis because it covers simple,
intermediate, and complex terrain and can predict both short-term and long-term (annual)
average concentrations. The model was run using the regulatory default options (stack-tip
downwash, buoyancy-induced dispersion, final plume rise), default wind speed profile
categories, default potential temperature gradients, no deposition or depletion of particulate
matter, and no pollutant decay.
The ISC3 is a micro-scale, steady-state Gaussian plume dispersion model applicable for
estimating impacts from a wide variety of emission release patterns (point, area, line, and
volume) such as those found at ports for distances up to approximately 50 kilometers.
The appropriate dispersion coefficients used in modeling depend on the land use within
three kilometers (km) of what is being modeled. The type of land use is based on a
classification method that is defined by Auer (1978). Pertinent United States Geological
Survey (USGS) 1:24,000 scale (7.5 minute) topographic maps of the area were used. If the
Auer land use types of heavy industrial, light-to-moderate industrial, commercial, and
compact residential account for 50 percent or more of the total area, the Guideline on Air
Quality Models recommends using urban dispersion coefficients; otherwise, the appropriate
rural coefficients are used. Based on the area that surrounds the facility, from a dispersion
modeling standpoint, rural dispersion coefficients are used.
Receptor Locations
A Cartesian grid receptor network with a 250 m x 250 m resolution is used, for a total of
1020 receptors. Additional receptors were placed to representative sensitive receptors such
as schools, recreational areas, and residences. The elevation of each receptor within the
modeling domain was determined from USGS Digital Elevation Model (DEM) data.
Receptors are placed at a height of 1.8 meters (typical breathing height) above ground level.
Meteorological Data
The rate at which emissions are dispersed in the atmosphere depends upon the intensity of
the ambient turbulence, the wind velocity, the position relative to obstacles in the flow field,
and any dilutions attributable to the source itself.
D–24
Surface meteorological data and upper air meteorological data from UC Richmond17 was
used for the modeling analysis. The windrose (Figure 1) indicates winds are predominantly
from the south-southeast with an average wind speed of 3.23 meters per second for the fiveyear period of 2001 through 2005.
FIGURE 1
UC RICHMOND WINDROSE
Source Release Characteristics
The emission sources associated with the facility are characterized as area, line (a series of
area sources), and point sources.
Model parameters for area sources include emission rate, release height, lengths of x and y
sides of a polygonal area, and initial vertical dimensions of the plume. Auto carrier
loading/unloading areas, locomotive switch/line haul areas are simulated as areas sources
with a release height of 4 and 5 meters, respectively, and an initial vertical dimension of
1.86 and 2.33 meters, respectively. Marine auto carriers and harbor craft (tugs) in open
17
BAAQMD Meteorological Data, http://www.baaqmd.gov/tec/data/#
D–25
waters are simulated as line sources with a release height of 50 and 6 meters, respectively,
an initial vertical dimension of 23.3 and 2.79 meters, respectively. The line sources were
simulated with a width of 160 meters within the maneuvering and slow cruise conditions.
Model parameters for marine auto carriers in hotelling conditions include emission rates,
stack height, stack diameter, stack exhaust temperature, and stack exhaust exit velocity are
included in Table 1.
TABLE 1
MARINE AUTO CARRIER HOTELLING RELEASE CHARACTERISTICS
Stack
Height
(m)
Stack
Diameter
(m)
Exhaust
Temperature
(K)
Exit
Velocity
(m/s)
43
0.5
618
16
Source: CARB, 2006.
Temporal factors are used to describe the relationship of activity levels in one period of time
to another period of time (i.e., the relationship of the activity during one-hour to the activity
during a 24-hour period). The use of temporal factors gives the model the ability to more
accurately reflect real world conditions.
TABLE 2
EMISSION SOURCE TEMPORAL DISTRIBUTION
Source
Period
Activity Distribution
Hours per Day
Marine Auto Carrier
4 am – 8 pm
8 pm – 4 am
midnight-midnight
6 am – 6 pm
6 pm – 6 am
6 am – 6 pm
6 pm – 6 am
midnight-midnight
80%
20%
100%
80%
20%
80%
20%
100%
16
8
24
12
12
12
12
24
Hotelling
Harbor Craft
Auto Carrier Trucks
Rail
Source: CARB, 2006.
Exposure Assumptions
The exposure assumptions used to calculate health impacts include exposure frequency,
exposure time, exposure duration and averaging time. Each land use classification
considered in the HRA has its own unique exposure assumptions. For example, the HRA
assumes a 70-year, 24-hour/day, 350 days/year exposure duration to calculate
carcinogenic effects for residents. This exposure duration is equivalent to residents being
present in their home seven days a week for 50 weeks/year (or about 96 percent of the time)
with approximately 15 days spent away from home. Potential health impacts to an offsite
worker will vary depending on the worker’s schedule and the operating hours of the facility.
Offsite workers are assumed to work a regular eight hours/day, five days/week, 49
weeks/year, over a 40-year schedule. School children exposure assumptions were based on
eight hours/day, five days/week, 180 days/year over 14 years. Teacher exposure
assumptions were based on eight hours/day, five days/week, 180 days/year over 40 years.
Individual body weights and breathing rates were based on OEHHA guidance. Of note,
given land uses within the receptor grid, no off-workers were included in the analysis, due to
D–26
exposure durations the use of residence receptors instead of off-site worker is more
conservative.
For the cancer risk assessment, emission rates were determined based on the average
emission rate over the 70-year lifetime (i.e., the project emission rate divided by 70 years).
However, for the chronic and acute health impacts, the maximum emission rate was used. In
the case of DPM, these maximum emission rates occur in the beginning of the time period.
Toxicity Assessment
The toxicity values used in this analysis were based on OEHHA guidance. These toxicity
values are for carcinogenic effects and chronic health impacts. The primary pathway for
exposures was assumed to be inhalation and carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects were
evaluated separately.
The principal issues related to health risks from the project pertain to emissions of toxic
substances from the exhaust of diesel trucks and equipment. The incremental risks were
determined for these sources of TAC as described above and summed to obtain an
estimated total incremental carcinogenic health risk. The health risk assessment was
conducted according to methodologies present in BAAQMD’s Health Risk Screening Analysis
Guidelines.
In accordance with OEHHA guidelines, the HRA was accomplished by applying the highest
estimated concentrations of TAC at the receptors analyzed to the established cancer
potency factors and acceptable reference concentrations (RfC) for non-cancer health effects.
The HRA for this project utilized CARB Hotspot Analysis and Reporting Program
(HARP) 18 to determine the cancer risks and non-cancer health effects. HARP is a computer
software package that combines the tools of emission inventory database, facility
prioritization, air dispersion modeling, and risk assessment analysis.
Risk Characterization
The cancer risk is the probability of an individual developing cancer as a result of exposure
to DPM. The cancer risks are assumed to occur exclusively through the inhalation pathway.
The cancer risk based on a one-year exposure can be estimated by utilizing the cancer
potency factor (mg/kg-day), the annual average concentration (µg/m3), and the lifetime
exposure adjustment. HARP was conducted using the 95th percentile breathing rate (derived
OEHHA) method.
The cancer risks occur exclusively through the inhalation pathway; therefore, the cancer risks
can be estimated from the following equation:
Dose = ∑ C • DBR • EF • ED • (10 -6 )/(AT)
Where:
Dose
C
DBR
EF
ED
18
Dose through Inhalation (mg/kg-day)
Annual average concentration (µg/m3) (from previous equation)
during the 70 year exposure period
Daily Breathing Rate (L/kg-day)
Exposure Frequency (days/year)
Exposure Duration (years)
HARP (Version 1.3).
D–27
AT
Averaging Period over which exposure is averaged (25,550 days
or 70 years)
Cancer Risk = Dose (mg/kg-day) • Cancer Potency (kg-day/mg) • (106 )
The Hazard Index is an expression used for the potential for non-cancer health effects. The
relationship for the non-cancer health effects is given by the annual concentration (µg/m3)
and the Reference Exposure Level (µg/m3). The acute hazard index was determined using
the “simple” concurrent maximum approach, which tends to be conservative (i.e.,
overpredicts).
The relationship for the non-cancer health effects is given by the following equation:
HI = C/REL
where,
HIDPM
CDPM
REL DPM
Hazard index; an expression of the potential for non-cancer health
effects.
Annual average DPM concentration (µg/m3) during the 70 year exposure
period
Reference exposure level (REL); the concentration at which no adverse
health effects are anticipated.
The cancer risk and health index are determined by pollutant and then totaled for
comparison with the significance thresholds.
D–28
References
Auer, 1978. Correlation of Land Use and Cover with Meteorological Anomalies, August H. Auer,
Jr., American Meteorological Society, Journal of Applied Meteorology, Vol. 17, pp. 636643 (http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0450/17/5/pdf/i1520-0450-17-5636.pdf), May 1978.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD Health Risk Screening Analysis
Guidelines
(http://www.baaqmd.gov/pmt/air_toxics/risk_procedures_policies/hrsa_guidelines.pdf), June
2005.
California Air Resource Board. 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter
Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles
(http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpfinal.pdf). October 2000.
California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment, 2003, Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Parts I-IV
and Appendices (http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/index.html), August
2003.
California Air Resource Board, Air Quality Impacts from NOx Emissions of Two Potential
Marine Vessel Control Strategies in the South Coast Air Basin, November 2000.
California Air Resource Board, Railroad Statewide Agreement Particulate Emissions Reduction
Program at California Rail Yards, June 2005.
California Air Resource Board, 2005 Oceangoing Ship Survey Summary of Results, September
2005.
ENVIRON, Richmond Facility TAC Emissions Inventory, October 3, 2006.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Health Assessment Document for Diesel Engine
Exhaust (EPA/600/8-90/057F) (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/dieselfinal.pdf),
May 2002.
Environmental Protection Agency, 2005. Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised, including
Supplements), EPA-450/2-78-027R
(http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/appw_05.pdf), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, November 9, 2005.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2006c. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors,
AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources, Section 13.2.5
Industrial Wind Erosion
(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch13/final/c13s0205.pdf), November 2006.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Analysis of Commercial Marine Vessels Emissions and
Fuel Consumption Data, February 2000.
ICF Consulting, Current Methodologies and Best Practices in Preparing Port Emissions
Inventories, January 5, 2006.
Starcrest Consulting Group, LLC, Port of Long Beach Air Emissions Inventory – 2005,
September 2007.
Starcrest Consulting Group, LLC, Puget Sound Maritime Air Emissions Inventory, April 2007.
D–29
(This page intentionally left blank.)
D–30
Appendix E
Noise Measurements
Figure Noise-E1
Site 2 - Project Site Fence near
Current Car Carrier Truck Loading Area
Tuesday February 5, 2008
100
Decibels (dBA)
90
80
70
60
50
40
000
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300
Hour
Leq - Equivalent Steady State Sound Level (Leq)
Lmx - Maximum Sound Level During Hour
L 50 - Sound Level Exceeded 30 minutes each hour
L90 - Sound Level Exceeded 54 minutes each hour
Figure Noise E2
Site 3 - Project Site Fence
at nearest point to Seacliff Homes
100
Decibels (dBA)
90
80
70
60
50
40
000
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300
Hour
Figure Noise-E3
Wednesday February 6, 2008
100
Decibels (dBA)
90
80
70
60
50
40
000
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300
Hour
Figure Noise-E4
Thursday February 7, 2008
100
Decibels (dBA)
90
80
70
60
50
40
000
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300
Hour
Figure Noise-E5
Site 5 - 50 feet from Center of Canal Blvd.
Near Building 23
100
Decibels (dBA)
90
80
70
60
50
40
000
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300
Hour
Figure Noise-E6
Near Building 23
100
Decibels (dBA)
90
80
70
60
50
40
000
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300
Hour
Figure Noise-E7
Near Building 23
100
Decibels (dBA)
90
80
70
60
50
40
000
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300
Hour
Figure Noise-E8
Site 6 - Near Canal Blvd. Rail Crossing
and West Cutting Blvd.
100.0
Decibels (dBA)
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
000
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300
Hour
Figure Noise-E9
100.0
Decibels (dBA)
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
000
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300
Hour
Figure Noise-E10
100.0
Decibels (dBA)
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
000
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300
Hour
Appendix F
Special–Status Plant Species
Jan 14, 2008
Potentially Occurring Special-status Plant
Species Evaluated For The Honda Port Of
Entry Project
FAMILY
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Habitat Affinities And
Reported Distribution
Blooming Time
Life Form
Potential For
Occurrence On Site
Occurs in freshwater marsh, marshes and swamps, riparian
scrub.
Recorded from Alameda, Contra Costa, Napa, Sacramento,
San Joaquin, Solano.
Apr-Nov
None:
no suitable habitat
present.
Project site is outside of
known range of species.
Apiaceae - Carrot Family
Lilaeopsis masonii
Mason's lilaeopsis
Federal: none
State: SR
CNPS: 1B.1
Perennial Herb
(rhizomatous)
Other: DFG: Special
Plant
Sanicula maritima
Federal: none
adobe sanicle
State: SR
CNPS: 1B.1
Other: DFG: Special
Occurs in chaparral, coastal prairie, meadows, valley and foothill Feb-May
grassland
Perennial Herb
Substrate: serpentine, Habitats Note: clay.
Recorded from Alameda, Monterey, San Francisco, San Luis
Obispo.
None:
no suitable habitat
present.
Occurs in valley and foothill grassland.
Substrate: alkaline.
Recorded from Alameda, Contra Costa, Monterey, San Luis
Obispo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano.
May-Nov
None:
no suitable habitat
present.
Occurs in broadleafed upland forest, chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub, foothill woodland, northern coastal
scrub, riparian woodland, valley and foothill grassland.
Recorded from Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco,
San Mateo.
Apr-Jun
Plant
Asteraceae - Sunflower Family
Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii
Congdon's tarplant
Federal: none
State: none
CNPS: 1B.2
Annual Herb
Other: DFG: Special
Plant
Helianthella castanea
Diablo helianthella
Federal: none
State: none
CNPS: 1B.2
Other: DFG: Special
Perennial Herb
None:
no suitable habitat
present.
Plant
CalBiota
TM
Page 1
Jan 14, 2008
Entry Project
FAMILY
Scientific Name
Common Name
Holocarpha macradenia
Santa Cruz tarplant
Status
Federal: FT
State: SE
CNPS: 1B.1
Other: DFG: Special
Blooming Time
Life Form
Potential For
Occurrence On Site
Occurs in coastal prairie, coastal scrub, valley and foothill
Jun-Oct
grassland
Annual Herb
Habitats Note: clay.
Recorded from Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Monterey, Santa
Cruz.
None:
no suitable habitat
present.
Occurs in cismontane woodland, playas, valley and foothill
grassland, vernal pools.
Moisture: moist.
Recorded from Alameda, Contra Costa, Mendocino, Monterey,
Napa, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Solano.
Mar-Jun
None:
no suitable habitat
present.
Occurs in broadleafed upland forest, coastal scrub, lower
montane coniferous forest, northern coastal scrub, valley and
foothill grassland, yellow pine forest.
Substrate: serpentinite, clay.
Recorded from Alameda, Marin, Monterey, Napa, San Mateo,
Santa Clara, Solano, Sonoma, Yolo.
Jun-Oct
Plant
Lasthenia conjugens
Contra Costa goldfields
Federal: FE
State: none
CNPS: 1B.1
Other: DFG: Special
Annual Herb
Plant
Lessingia hololeuca
woolly-headed lessingia
Federal: none
State: none
CNPS:
3
Other: DFG: Special
Plant
Micropus amphibolus
Mt. Diablo cottonweed
Federal: none
State: none
CNPS:
3.2
Other: DFG: Special
Plant
Senecio aphanactis
rayless ragwort
Federal: none
State: none
CNPS:
2.2
Other: DFG: Special
Plant
CalBiota
TM
Annual Herb
None:
no suitable habitat
present.
Mar-May
woodland, foothill woodland, mixed evergreen forest, valley and
Annual Herb
foothill grassland.
Substrate: rocky.
Recorded from Alameda, Colusa, Contra Costa, Lake, Marin,
Monterey, Napa, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz,
Solano, Sonoma.
None:
no suitable habitat
present.
Occurs in cismontane woodland, coastal sage scrub, coastal
Jan-Apr
scrub, foothill woodland, northern coastal scrub
Annual Herb
Substrate: alkaline, Habitats Note: alkaline.
Recorded from Alameda, Contra Costa, Fresno, Los Angeles,
Merced, Orange, Riverside, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, Santa
Barbara, Santa Clara, Solano, Ventura.Santa Catalina Island,
Santa Cruz Island, Santa Rosa Island.Also recorded from Baja
California.
None:
no suitable habitat
present.
Page 2
Jan 14, 2008
Entry Project
FAMILY
Scientific Name
Common Name
Symphyotrichum lentum
Suisun Marsh aster
Status
Blooming Time
Life Form
Occurs in freshwater marsh, marshes and swamps.
May-Nov
Recorded from Contra Costa, Napa, Sacramento, San Joaquin,
Perennial Herb
Solano.
(rhizomatous)
Federal: none
State: none
CNPS: 1B.2
Potential For
Occurrence On Site
None:
no suitable habitat
present.
Other: DFG: Special
Plant
Boraginaceae - Borage Family
Amsinckia lunaris
bent-flowered fiddleneck
Federal: none
State: none
CNPS: 1B.2
Occurs in cismontane woodland, coastal bluff scrub, foothill
woodland, valley and foothill grassland.
Recorded from Alameda, Colusa, Contra Costa, Lake, Marin,
Napa, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Shasta, Siskiyou, Sonoma.
Mar-Jun
Occurs in chaparral, coastal prairie, coastal scrub, northern
coastal scrub
Moisture: moist.
Recorded from Alameda, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa
Cruz.
Mar-Jun
Occurs in coastal salt marsh, meadows.
Recorded from Alameda, Marin, Merced, San Benito, Santa
Clara.
Mar-May
Annual Herb
None:
no suitable habitat
present.
Other: DFG: Special
Plant
Plagiobothrys chorisianus var.
chorisianus
Choris's popcorn-flower
Federal: none
State: none
CNPS: 1B.2
Other: DFG: Special
Annual Herb
None:
no suitable habitat
present.
Plant
Plagiobothrys glaber
hairless popcorn-flower
Federal: none
State: none
CNPS:
1A
*
Annual Herb
None:
no suitable habitat
present.
Other: DFG: Special
Plant
CalBiota
TM
Page 3
Jan 14, 2008
Entry Project
FAMILY
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Blooming Time
Life Form
Potential For
Occurrence On Site
Brassicaceae - Mustard Family
Streptanthus albidus ssp. peramoenus
most beautiful jewel-flower
Federal: none
State: none
CNPS: 1B.2
Occurs in chaparral, cismontane woodland, foothill woodland,
Apr-Jun
valley and foothill grassland
Annual Herb
Substrate: serpentinite.
Recorded from Alameda, Contra Costa, Monterey, Santa Clara.
None:
no suitable habitat
present.
Occurs in chenopod scrub, meadows, playas, shadscale scrub, Apr-Oct
valley and foothill grassland
Annual Herb
Recorded from Alameda, Colusa, Contra Costa, Glenn, Merced,
Monterey, Napa, Sacramento, San Benito, San Joaquin, Santa
Clara, Solano, Tulare, Yolo.
None:
no suitable habitat
present.
Other: DFG: Special
Plant
Chenopodiaceae - Goosefoot Family
Atriplex joaquiniana
San Joaquin spearscale
Federal: none
State: none
CNPS: 1B.2
Other: DFG: Special
Plant
Suaeda californica
California seablite
Federal: FE
State: none
None:
Shrub (evergreen) no suitable habitat
present.
Occurs in coastal salt marsh, marshes and swamps.
Recorded from Alameda, San Francisco, San Luis Obispo,
Santa Clara.
Jul-Oct
Occurs in coastal dunes, coastal scrub.
Recorded from Contra Costa, Lake, Marin, Mendocino,
Sonoma.
May-Aug
CNPS: 1B.1
Other: DFG: Special
Plant
Convolvulaceae - Morning-glory Family
Calystegia purpurata ssp. saxicola
coastal bluff morning-glory
Federal: none
State: none
Perennial Herb
None:
no suitable habitat
present.
CNPS: 1B.2
Other: DFG: Special
Plant
CalBiota
TM
Page 4
Jan 14, 2008
Entry Project
FAMILY
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Blooming Time
Life Form
woodland, closed-cone coniferous forest, coastal scrub, foothill
woodland, mixed evergreen forest
Substrate: sedimentary shale.
Recorded from Alameda, Contra Costa.
Dec-Mar
Potential For
Occurrence On Site
Ericaceae - Heath Family
Arctostaphylos pallida
pallid manzanita
Federal: FT
State: SE
CNPS: 1B.1
Other: DFG: Special
None:
Shrub (evergreen) no suitable habitat
present.
Plant
Fabaceae - Legume Family
Astragalus tener var. tener
alkali milk-vetch
Federal: none
State: none
CNPS: 1B.2
Other: DFG: Special
Plant
Hoita strobilina
Loma Prieta hoita
Federal: none
State: none
CNPS: 1B.1
Other: DFG: Special
Occurs in alkali sink, playas, valley and foothill grassland, vernal Mar-Jun
pools.
Annual Herb
Substrate: adobe clay, alkaline.
Recorded from Alameda, Contra Costa, Merced, Monterey,
Napa, San Benito, San Francisco, San Joaquin, Santa Clara,
Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Yolo.
None:
no suitable habitat
present.
Occurs in chaparral, cismontane woodland, mixed evergreen
forest, riparian woodland.
Moisture: mesic,Substrate: serpentinitic soils,
Recorded from Alameda, Contra Costa, Santa Clara, Santa
Cruz.
May-Oct
None:
no suitable habitat
present.
Occurs in freshwater marsh, marshes and swamps.
Recorded from Alameda, Contra Costa, Napa, Sacramento,
San Joaquin, Santa Clara, Solano.
May-Sep
Perennial Herb
Plant
Lathyrus jepsonii var. jepsonii
Delta tule pea
Federal: none
State: none
CNPS: 1B.2
Other: DFG: Special
Perennial Herb
None:
marginally suitable
habitat present.
Plant
CalBiota
TM
Page 5
Jan 14, 2008
Entry Project
FAMILY
Scientific Name
Common Name
Trifolium depauperatum var.
hydrophilum
saline clover
Status
Federal: none
State: none
CNPS: 1B.2
Other: DFG: Special
Blooming Time
Life Form
Potential For
Occurrence On Site
Occurs in marshes and swamps, valley and foothill grassland,
Apr-Jun
vernal pools.
Annual Herb
Moisture: mesic,Substrate: alkaline,
Recorded from Alameda, Colusa, Monterey, Napa, San Benito,
San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, Sonoma.
None:
no suitable habitat
present.
Occurs in cismontane woodland, foothill woodland, valley and
foothill grassland.
Substrate: clay.
Recorded from Alameda, Butte, Colusa, Contra Costa, Fresno,
Glenn, Kern, Kings, Lake, Lassen, Los Angeles, Merced,
Monterey, Napa, Riverside, San Benito, San Diego, San
Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Solano,
Sonoma, Stanislaus, Tehama, Ventura, Yolo.Santa Cruz
Island.Also recorded from Baja California, Oregon, Utah.
None:
no suitable habitat
present.
Plant
Geraniaceae - Geranium Family
California macrophylla
round-leaved filaree
Federal: none
State: none
CNPS:
2.1
Other: DFG: Special
Plant
Mar-May
Annual Herb
Lamiaceae - Mint Family
Monardella villosa ssp. globosa
robust monardella
Federal: none
State: none
CNPS: 1B.2
Other: DFG: Special
Jun-Jul
woodland, coastal scrub, foothill woodland, valley and foothill
Perennial Herb
grassland.
(rhizomatous)
Recorded from Alameda, Contra Costa, Humboldt, Lake, Marin,
Mendocino, Napa, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Sonoma.
None:
no suitable habitat
present.
Occurs in cismontane woodland, coastal prairie, coastal scrub,
northern coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland.
Substrate: often serpentinite.
Recorded from Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Monterey, San
Benito, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano,
Sonoma.
None:
no suitable habitat
present.
Plant
Liliaceae - Lily Family
Fritillaria liliacea
fragrant fritillary
Federal: none
State: none
CNPS: 1B.2
Other: DFG: Special
Plant
CalBiota
TM
Feb-Apr
Perennial Herb
(bulbiferous)
Page 6
Jan 14, 2008
Entry Project
FAMILY
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Blooming Time
Life Form
Potential For
Occurrence On Site
Occurs in coastal prairie, coastal scrub.
Moisture: mesic, Habitats Note: open areas.
Recorded from Contra Costa, Santa Clara.Also recorded from
Oregon, Washington.
Mar-Apr
None:
no suitable habitat
present.
Occurs in coastal dunes, coastal scrub.
Recorded from Marin, San Francisco, Sonoma.
Apr-Jul
Occurs in coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, coastal prairie,
coastal scrub, coastal strand, northern coastal scrub.
Substrate: sandy.
Recorded from Alameda, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo,
Santa Clara, Sonoma.
Apr-Aug
Occurs in cismontane woodland, coastal dunes, coastal scrub,
coastal strand, foothill woodland, northern coastal scrub.
Substrate: sandy, gravelly.
Recorded from Alameda, Monterey, San Mateo, Santa Clara,
Santa Cruz.
Apr-Sep
Papaveraceae - Poppy Family
Meconella oregana
Federal: none
Oregon meconella
State: none
CNPS: 1B.1
Annual Herb
Other: DFG: Special
Plant
Polemoniaceae - Phlox Family
Gilia capitata ssp. chamissonis
Federal: none
dune gilia
State: none
Annual Herb
None:
no suitable habitat
present.
CNPS: 1B.1
Other: DFG: Special
Plant
Polygonaceae - Buckwheat Family
Chorizanthe cuspidata var. cuspidata
San Francisco Bay spineflower
Federal: none
State: none
CNPS: 1B.2
Other: DFG: Special
Annual Herb
None:
no suitable habitat
present.
Plant
Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta
robust spineflower
Federal: FE
State: none
CNPS: 1B.1
Other: DFG: Special
Annual Herb
None:
no suitable habitat
present.
Plant
CalBiota
TM
Page 7
Jan 14, 2008
Entry Project
FAMILY
Scientific Name
Common Name
Eriogonum luteolum var. caninum
Status
Federal: none
State: none
Tiburon buckwheat
CNPS:
3.2
Other: DFG: Special
Blooming Time
Life Form
Potential For
Occurrence On Site
Occurs in chaparral, coastal prairie, valley and foothill
grassland.
Substrate: serpentinite.
Recorded from Alameda, Colusa, Lake, Marin, Napa, San
Mateo, Santa Clara, Sonoma.
Jun-Sep
None:
no suitable habitat
present.
Annual Herb
Plant
Rosaceae - Rose Family
Horkelia cuneata ssp. sericea
Federal: none
Kellogg's horkelia
State: none
CNPS: 1B.1
Other: DFG: Special
Occurs in closed-cone coniferous forest, closed-cone pine
Apr-Sep
forest, coastal sage scrub, coastal scrub, northern coastal
Perennial Herb
scrub.
Recorded from Alameda, Marin, Monterey, San Francisco, San
Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz.
None:
no suitable habitat
present.
Habitats Note: coastal salt marsh.
Recorded from Alameda, Humboldt, Marin, San Mateo, Santa
Clara, Sonoma. Also recorded from Oregon.
Jun-Oct
None:
no suitable habitat
present.
Recorded from Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, Sacramento,
Solano, Sonoma.
Jul-Nov
Plant
Scrophulariaceae - Figwort Family
Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. palustris
Point Reyes bird's-beak
Federal: none
State: none
CNPS: 1B.2
Annual Herb,
Hemiparasitic
Other: DFG: Special
Plant
Cordylanthus mollis ssp. mollis
soft bird's-beak
Federal: FE
State: SR
CNPS: 1B.2
Annual Herb,
Hemiparasitic
None:
no suitable habitat
present.
Other: DFG: Special
Plant
CalBiota
TM
Page 8
Jan 14, 2008
Entry Project
FAMILY
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Blooming Time
Life Form
woodland, closed-cone coniferous forest, closed-cone pine
forest, foothill woodland, mixed evergreen forest, north coast
coniferous forest, riparian forest, riparian woodland.
Moisture: moist.
Recorded from Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Mateo,
Santa Clara, Sonoma.
Jan-Apr
Potential For
Occurrence On Site
Thymelaeaceae - Mezereum Family
Dirca occidentalis
western leatherwood
Federal: none
State: none
CNPS: 1B.2
Other: DFG: Special
Plant
CalBiota
TM
None:
Shrub (deciduous) no suitable habitat
present.
Page 9
Appendix G
Special–Status Animal Species
Potentially Occurring Special-status Animal
Entry Project
SORTED BY CLASS
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Feb 5, 2008
Potential For
Occurrence On Site
Branchiopoda - Branchiopods
Branchinecta lynchi
vernal pool fairy shrimp
Federal FT
State none
Other DFG: Special
Animal
Inhabits small, clear-water sandstone-depression astatic rain-filled pools and
grassed swales, earth slumps, or basalt-flow depression pools.
Recorded from Alameda, Butte, Calaveras, Contra Costa, El Dorado,
Fresno, Glenn, Kings, Madera, Merced, Monterey, Napa, Placer, Riverside,
Sacramento, San Benito, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Shasta, Solano,
Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Tulare, Ventura, Yuba counties. Additional
distribution: endemic to the grasslands of the Central Valley, Central Coast
and South Coast mountains.
None:
no suitable habitat present.
Prefers to hide under downed branches or logs, or in crevices in boulders
and rock outcrops, on open hillsides with tall grasses and weeds.
Recorded from Alameda, Contra Costa counties.
None:
Inhabits coastal lagoons, estuaries and salt marshes. Found only in
permanently submerged areas in a variety of sediment types. Tolerant of a
wide range of salinities.
Recorded from Alameda, Los Angeles, Monterey, Orange, San Diego, San
Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Sonoma,
Ventura counties. Additional distribution: occurs from Sonoma County south
to San Diego County.
None:
no suitable habitat present
on site.
Found beneath sandstone rocks in open oak grassland where it is sympatric
with Calicina polina.
Recorded from Alameda County. Additional distribution: found only at one
site in the hills above UC Berkeley and another just beyond the Oakland
border.
None:
Gastropoda - Snails And Slugs
Helminthoglypta nickliniana bridgesi
Federal none
State none
Bridges' Coast Range shoulderband snail
Tryonia imitator
mimic tryonia
Other DFG: Special
Animal
Federal none
State none
Other DFG: Special
Animal
Marginally suitable habitat
present in adjacent tidal
saltmarsh.
Arachnida - Arachnids
Microcina leei
Lee's micro-blind harvestman
Federal none
State none
Other DFG: Special
Animal
CalBiota
TM
Page 1
Entry Project
SORTED BY CLASS
Scientific Name
Common Name
Microcina tiburona
Tiburon micro-blind harvestman
Status
Federal none
State none
Feb 5, 2008
Potential For
Occurrence On Site
Inhabits open hilly grassland habitat in areas of serpentine bedrock. Found
on the undersides of serpentine rocks near permanent springs.
Recorded from Marin County.
None:
Inhabits shallow pools away from main streamflow. In winter, found at
undercut banks with exposed roots. In summer, found around leafy branches
touching water. Found at low elevations in low gradient streams where
riparian cover is moderate to heavy.
Recorded from Marin, Napa, Sonoma counties.
None:
Other DFG: Special
Animal
Malacostraca
Syncaris pacifica
California freshwater shrimp
Federal FE
State SE
Other DFG: Special
Animal
Insecta - Insects
Danaus plexippus
monarch butterfly
Federal none
State none
Other DFG: Special
Animal
(wintering)
Trachusa gummifera
no common name-a leaf cutting bee
Federal none
State none
Other DFG: Special
Animal
CalBiota
TM
None:
Listing refers to wintering sites only. Roosts located in wind-protected tree
groves (eucalyptus, Monterey pine, Monterey cypress), with nectar and water no suitable habitat present
sources nearby.
for wintering colonies.
Recorded from Alameda, Contra Costa, Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles, Marin,
Mendocino, Monterey, Orange, San Diego, San Francisco, San Luis Obispo,
San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Solano, Sonoma, Ventura counties.
Additional distribution: winter roost sites extend along the coast from northern
Mendocino to Baja California, Mexico.
Known from two collections made in 1957 and 1962. No specific habitat
information is available.
Leafcutting bees use cut leaves to construct nests in cavities (mostly in
rotting wood). They create multiple cells in the nest, each with a single larva
and pollen stored for the larvae to eat. Leafcutting bees are important
pollinators of wildflowers, fruits, vegetables and other crops.
Recorded from Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo counties.
Not expected:
marginally suitable habitat
present.
Page 2
Entry Project
SORTED BY CLASS
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Feb 5, 2008
Potential For
Occurrence On Site
Cephalaspidomorphi - Lampreys
Lampetra ayresi
river lamprey
Federal none
State none
Other DFG: CSC
Lampetra tridentata
Pacific lamprey
Federal none
State none
Other DFG: Special
Animal
Anadromous; adults spend 3-4 months in the ocean, the rest of their life
history in rivers and streams. Adults need clean, gravelly riffles. Ammocoetes
need sandy backwaters or stream edges with good water quality and
temperatures below 25 degrees C.
General distribution:Occurs in the lower Sacramento River, San Joaquin
River and Russian River. May occur in coastal streams north of San
Francisco Bay.
Low:
Type specimen from San
Francisco Bay, the southern
terminus of their distribution.
Thought to be declining in
California.
Anadromous and parasitic. Anadromous; predatory phase is coastal marine
except for land-locked populations. Spawning adults inhabit gravel riffles and
runs of clear coastal streams. Feeding adults usually inhabit the ocean, but
landlocked populations occur. Ammocoetes inhabit silt, mud, and sand of
shallow eddies and backwaters of streams. Occurs in freshwater, brackish,
and marine environments.
Low:
Anadromous forms are
diminished in number; they
have been petitioned and
USFWS is considering them
for listing.
Anadromous. Found in estuaries, lower reaches of large rivers, and in salt or
brackish water off river mouths. Probably spawns in deep, fast freshwater.
Spawns in the Sacramento River and the Klamath River.
High:
suitable habitat present.
Actinopterygii - Ray-finned Fishes
Acipenser medirostris
green sturgeon
Federal FT
State none
Other AFS:
Endangered
DFG: CSC
Archoplites interruptus
Sacramento perch
Federal none
State none
Other DFG: CSC
CalBiota
TM
Adults and juveniles migrate
through the San Francisco
Bay.
Common in ponds and impoundments. Prefers warm water. Aquatic
vegetation is essental for young. Tolerates wide range of physico-chemical
water conditions. Freshwater. Historically found in the sloughs, slow-moving
rivers, and lakes of the Central Valley.
Recorded from Contra Costa, Lake, Sacramento counties. Additional
distribution: native range is Sacramento-San Joaquin, Pajaro, and Salinas
River drainages, and Clear Lake.
Low:
Largely extirpated from
historical range.
Page 3
Entry Project
SORTED BY CLASS
Scientific Name
Common Name
Eucyclogobius newberryi
tidewater goby
Status
Federal FE
State none
Other AFS:
Endangered
DFG: CSC
Inhabits shallow waters of bays and estuaries, lower stream reaches and
coastal stream lagoons. Requires fairly still but not stagnant water and high
oxygen levels. Tolerates a wide variation in salinity (1-28 ppt.) and
temperature (9-25°C). The substrate and vegetation can vary among lagoon,
creek and marsh habitats.
Feb 5, 2008
Potential For
Occurrence On Site
Low:
Believed extirpated from
San Francisco Bay; possibly
present in Lake Merritt.
Recorded from Alameda, Del Norte, Humboldt, Los Angeles, Marin,
Mendocino, Monterey, Orange, San Diego, San Francisco, San Luis Obispo,
San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Sonoma, Ventura counties.
Additional distribution: occurs along the southern California coast from Agua
Hedionda Lagoon, to the mouth of the Smith River.
Hypomesus transpacificus
delta smelt
Federal FT
State ST
Other AFS:
Threatened
DFG: Special
Animal
Oncorhynchus kisutch
coho salmon - Central Cal. ESU
Federal FE
State SE
Other DFG: Special
Animal
CalBiota
TM
Pelagic, euryhaline, mostly within 2-7 ppt salinity, especially upper San
Francisco Estuary (e.g. Suisun Bay). Spawns February - July, shallow edge
waters in the upper Delta. Occurs in open brackish and freshwater of large
channels. Most frequently found at salinities < 2ppt.; seldom found at
salinities > 10 ppt. Occurs in the Sacramento - San Joaquin Delta. Occurs
seasonally in Suisun Bay, Carquinez Strait and San Pablo Bay.
Recorded from Solano County.
Largely restricted to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, including the
Carquinez Strait and Suisun Bay.
Low:
Absent West of the
Carquinez bridge except
occasionally during years of
heavy rainfall.
Anadromous. Inhabits Bay Area and coastal rivers and streams with fish
access from/to ocean, cover and acceptable water quality. Requires beds of
loose, silt-free, coarse gravel for spawning. Also requires cover, cool water
and sufficient dissolved oxygen. Federal Listing covers populations between
Punta Gorda and San Lorenzo River. State listing covers populations south
of San Francisco Bay only.
Recorded from Humboldt, Marin, Mendocino, Santa Cruz, Sonoma counties.
Low:
Coho salmon are believed
extirpated from the San
Francisco Bay &
Sacramento-San Joaquin
River system.
Page 4
Entry Project
SORTED BY CLASS
Scientific Name
Common Name
Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus
steelhead - central Calif. coast ESU
Status
Federal FT
State none
Other DFG: Special
Animal
Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus
steelhead - Central Valley ESU
Federal FT
State none
Other DFG: Special
Animal
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
chinook salmon - spring-run
Federal FT
State ST
Other DFG: Special
Animal
FS: Sensitive
TM
Potential For
Occurrence On Site
Anadromous. Inhabits Bay Area and coastal rivers and streams with fish
access from/to ocean. Requires good water quality and silt-free gravel for
spawning. Occurs from the Russian River south to Soquel Creek and to, but
not including the Pajarro River. Also occurs in the San Francisco and San
Pablo basins.
Recorded from Alameda, Marin, Napa, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Sonoma
counties.
High:
These fish are known to
spawn in streams entering
San Francisco and San
Pablo Bays.
Anadromous. Spawns in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their
tributaries. Federal listing refers to all accessible reaches in the Sacramento
and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries. Also included are river reaches
and estuarine areas of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, all waters from
Chipps Island westward to Carquinez Bridge, including Honker Bay, Grizzly
Bay, Suisun Bay, and Carquinez Strait, all waters of San Pablo Bay
westward of the Carquinez Bridge, and all waters of San Francisco Bay
(north of the San Francisco/Oakland Bay Bridge) from San Pablo Bay to the
Golden Gate Bridge.
High:
Adults and juveniles migrate
through San Francisco, San
Pablo, and Suisun Bays and
the Delta.
Anadromous. Spawning and rearing restricted to a few tributaries of the
Sacramento River basin. Federal listing refers to populations spawning in
Sacramento River and its tributaries. Adult numbers dependet on pool depth
and volume, amunt of cover,and proximiy to gravel . Water temeratures
grater than 27 C lethal to adult.
High:
Migrate through San
Francisco Bay and
Delta to/from spawning
grounds.
Recorded from Butte, Humboldt, Nevada, Shasta, Siskiyou, Tehama, Trinity,
Yuba counties.
CalBiota
Feb 5, 2008
Page 5
Entry Project
SORTED BY CLASS
Scientific Name
Common Name
chinook salmon - winter-run
Status
Federal FE
State SE
Other DFG: Special
Animal
chinook salmon - fall/late fall-run, Central
Valley
CalBiota
TM
Federal none
State none
Other DFG: CSC
FS: Sensitive
NMFS: SC
Feb 5, 2008
Potential For
Occurrence On Site
Anadromous. Spawning restricted to the Sacramento River. Requires clean,
cold water over gravel beds with water temperatures between 6 and 14 c for
spawning. Federal listing refers to populations in the Sacramento River from
Keswick Dam, Shasta County (River Mile 302) to Chipps Island (River Mile 0)
at the westward margin of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, all waters
from Chipps Island westward to Carquinez Bridge, including Honker Bay,
Suisun Bay, and Carquinez Strait, all waters of San Pablo Bay westward of
the Carquinez Bridge, and all waters of San Francisco Bay (north of the San
Francisco/Oakland Bay Bridge) from San Pablo Bay to the Golden Gate
Bridge.
Recorded from Butte, Colusa, Contra Costa, Glenn, Napa, Nevada, Placer,
Plumas, Sacramento, Shasta, Solano, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity, Yolo, Yuba
counties.
High:
Migrate through San
Francisco Bay and
grounds.
Anadromous. Spawning and rearing restricted to lower reaches and
tributaries of the Sacramento River basin. The ESU includes all naturally
spawned populations of fall-run chinook salmon in the Sacramento and San
Joaquin River Basins and their tributaries, east of Carquinez Strait.
High:
Migrates through San
Francisco Bay and
grounds.
Recorded from Alameda, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, Contra Costa, Glenn,
Mariposa, Merced, Napa, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sacramento, San
Joaquin, Santa Clara, Shasta, Solano, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity,
Tuolumne, Yolo, Yuba counties.
Page 6
Entry Project
SORTED BY CLASS
Scientific Name
Common Name
Pogonichthys macrolepidotus
Sacramento splittail
Status
Federal none
State none
Other DFG: CSC
Spirinchus thaleichthys
longfin smelt
Federal none
State none
Other AFS:
Threatened
DFG: CSC
Feb 5, 2008
Potential For
Occurrence On Site
Inhabits slow-moving river sections, dead end sloughs. Requires flooded
vegetation for spawning and foraging for young. Inhabits fresh and brackish
water.
Recorded from Sacramento, Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus counties.
Additional distribution: endemic to the lakes and rivers of the Central Valley,
but now confined to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Suisun Bay and
associated marshes.
Low:
Previously common in San
Pablo Bay and Carquinez
Strait following high winter
flows.
Pelagic, euryhaline and anadromous. Spawnsin freshwater streams from
February to April. Larval nurseries in brackish estuarine waters. Late juvenile
- adult forms appear to prefer 15-30 ppt salinity. Found mostly close to shore,
in bays and estuaries, ascending coastal streams to spawn. Anadromous.
Occurs in fresh and brackish water, and marine environments.
Moderate:
Spawns in the lower San
Joaquin and Sacramento
Rivers and upper Suisun
Bay.
Now largely confined to the
Delta, Suisun Bay, Suisun
Marsh, Napa River,
Petaluma River, and other
parts of the
estuary.
High larval densities in
Suisun and San Pablo
Bays.
Amphibia - Amphibians
Ambystoma californiense
California tiger salamander - Central
Calif. DPS
CalBiota
TM
Federal FT
State None
Other DFG: CSC
Needs underground refuges, especially ground squirrel burrows and vernal
pools or other seasonal water sources for breeding.
Recorded from Alameda, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Contra Costa, Fresno,
Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Monterey, Riverside, Sacramento,
San Benito, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa
Cruz, Solano, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tulare, Yolo counties.
None:
Page 7
Entry Project
SORTED BY CLASS
Scientific Name
Common Name
Rana aurora draytonii
California red-legged frog
Status
Federal FT
State none
Other DFG: CSC
Feb 5, 2008
Potential For
Occurrence On Site
Inhabits lowlands and foothills in or near permanent sources of deep water
with dense, shrubby or emergent riparian vegetation. Requires 11-20 weeks
of permanent water for larval development. Must have access to estivation
habitat.
Recorded from Alameda, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Contra Costa, El
Dorado, Fresno, Glenn, Lake, Los Angeles, Marin, Mariposa, Mendocino,
Merced, Monterey, Napa, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Riverside, San Benito,
San Bernardino, San Diego, San Francisco, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo,
San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Shasta, Solano,
Sonoma, Stanislaus, Tehama, Tuolumne, Ventura, Yuba counties.
None:
A thoroughly aquatic turtle inhabiting ponds, marshes, rivers, streams and
irrigation ditches with aquatic vegetation. Needs basking sites and sandy
banks or grassy open fields in upland areas for egg-laying.
Recorded from Alameda, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, Contra Costa,
Del Norte, El Dorado, Fresno, Glenn, Humboldt, Kern, Kings, Lake, Lassen,
Los Angeles, Madera, Marin, Mariposa, Mendocino, Merced, Modoc,
Monterey, Napa, Nevada, Orange, Placer, Plumas, Riverside, Sacramento,
San Benito, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Francisco, San Joaquin, San
Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano, Sonoma,
Stanislaus, Tehama, Trinity, Tulare, Tuolumne, Ventura, Yolo, Yuba
counties.
None:
Inhabits south-facing slopes and ravines where shrubs form a vegetative
mosaic with oak trees and grasses. Restricted to valley-foothill hardwood
habitat of the Coast Ranges between Monterey and northern San Francisco
Bay.
Recorded from Alameda, Contra Costa counties.
None:
Reptilia - Reptiles
Actinemys marmorata
western pond turtle
Federal none
State none
Other DFG: CSC
Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus
Alameda whipsnake
Federal FT
State ST
Other DFG: Special
Animal
CalBiota
TM
Page 8
Entry Project
SORTED BY CLASS
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Feb 5, 2008
Potential For
Occurrence On Site
Aves - Birds
Accipiter cooperii
Cooper's hawk
Federal none
State none
Other DFG: CSC
(nesting)
FWS: MBTA
Agelaius tricolor
tricolored blackbird
Federal none
State none
Other Audubon:
Watch List
BLM:
Sensitive
DFG: CSC
(nesting
colony)
FWS: BCC;
MBTA
USBC: Watch
List
CalBiota
TM
Inhabits primarily open, interrupted or marginal woodlands. Nests mainly in
riparian groves of deciduous trees in canyon bottoms on river flood-plains.
Also nests in coast live oak.
Recorded from Alameda, Colusa, Contra Costa, Fresno, Humboldt, Imperial,
Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles, Monterey, Orange, Placer, Riverside, Sacramento,
San Bernardino, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz,
Siskiyou, Tulare, Ventura counties.
Possible:
present.
Highly colonial species. Requires open water, protected nesting substrate,
and foraging areas with insect prey within a few km of the colony. Greatest
concentrations are in the Central Valley and vicinity. Largely endemic to
California.
Recorded from Alameda, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, Contra Costa, El
Dorado, Fresno, Glenn, Humboldt, Kern, Kings, Lake, Lassen, Los Angeles,
Madera, Marin, Mendocino, Merced, Modoc, Monterey, Napa, Orange,
Placer, Riverside, Sacramento, San Benito, San Diego, San Joaquin, San
Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Shasta, Siskiyou,
Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Tuolumne, Ventura, Yolo,
Yuba counties.
Not expected:
present in the stormwater
drainage ditches along
Canal Blvd.
Page 9
Entry Project
SORTED BY CLASS
Scientific Name
Common Name
Aquila chrysaetos
golden eagle
Status
Federal none
State none
Other BLM:
Sensitive
CDF:
Sensitive
DFG: CSC
(nesting,
wintering)
DFG: fully
protected
FWS: BCC;
MBTA, BEPA
Ardea herodias
great blue heron
Federal none
State none
Other CDF:
Sensitive
DFG: Special
Animal
(rookery)
FWS: MBTA
Asio flammeus
short-eared owl
Federal none
State none
Other Audubon:
Watch List
DFG: CSC
(nesting)
FWS: MBTA
USBC: Watch
List
CalBiota
TM
Feb 5, 2008
Potential For
Occurrence On Site
Nests and winters in rolling foothills and mountain areas in sage-juniper flats
and deserts. Nests on cliff-walled canyons and large trees in open areas.
Recorded from Alameda, Colusa, Contra Costa, El Dorado, Fresno,
Humboldt, Kern, Lassen, Madera, Modoc, Mono, Monterey, Napa, Orange,
Riverside, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Clara, Siskiyou,
Solano, Trinity counties.
None:
Nests colonially in tall trees, cliffsides, and sequestered spots on marshes.
Rookery sites are usually in close proximity to foraging areas such as
marshes, lake margins, tide-flats, rivers and streams, wet meadows.
Recorded from Alameda, Butte, Del Norte, Humboldt, Imperial, Lake,
Lassen, Marin, Merced, Monterey, Placer, Riverside, Sacramento, San
Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Shasta, Siskiyou, Solano, Sonoma,
Stanislaus, Tehama, Tulare, Yolo counties.
None:
Inhabits both freshwater and salt water swamp lands, lowland meadows, and None:
irrigated alfalfa fields. Tule patches/tall grass needed for nesting/daytime
seclusion. Nests on dry ground in depressions concealed in vegetation.
Recorded from Contra Costa, Imperial, Los Angeles, Modoc, Monterey, San
Mateo, Solano counties.
Page 10
Entry Project
SORTED BY CLASS
Scientific Name
Common Name
Athene cunicularia
burrowing owl
Buteo regalis
ferruginous hawk
Status
Swainson's hawk
None:
Federal none
None:
Winters in open grasslands, sagebrush flats, desert scrub, low foothills and
fringes of pinyon-juniper habitats. Feeds primarily on lagomorphs (rabbits
and hares), ground squirrels, and mice. Population trends may follow
lagomorph population cycles. Does not nest in California.
General distribution: recorded throughout coastal California, Cetral Valley,
San Joaquin Valley, central and southern Sierra Nevada, eastern Sierras and
inland deserts.
Inhabits open, dry annual or perenial grasslands, deserts and scrublands
characterized by low-growing vegetation. Nests underground in mammal
State none
burrows, especially those of California ground squirrel.
Recorded from Alameda, Butte, Colusa, Contra Costa, Fresno, Glenn,
Other BLM:
Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Kings, Lassen, Los Angeles, Madera, Marin, Merced,
Sensitive
Monterey, Napa, Orange, Placer, Riverside, Sacramento, San Benito, San
DFG: CSC
(burrow sites) Bernardino, San Diego, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Santa Clara, Santa
Cruz, Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Tulare, Ventura, Yolo
FWS: BCC;
counties.
MBTA
State none
Federal none
State ST
Other Audubon:
Watch List
(Yellow)
DFG: Special
Animal
(nesting)
FS: Sensitive
FWS: BCC;
MBTA
USBC: Watch
List
CalBiota
TM
Potential For
Occurrence On Site
Federal none
Other Audubon:
Watch List
BLM:
Sensitive
DFG: CSC
(wintering)
FWS: BCC;
MBTA
Buteo swainsoni
Feb 5, 2008
Breeds in stands with few trees in juniper-sage flats, riparian areas and in
oak savannah. Requires adjacent suitable foraging areas such as
grasslands, or alfalfa or grain fields supporting rodent populations.
Recorded from Butte, Colusa, Contra Costa, Fresno, Glenn, Inyo, Kern,
Kings, Lassen, Los Angeles, Madera, Merced, Modoc, Mono, Placer,
Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Joaquin, Siskiyou, Solano, Stanislaus,
Sutter, Tehama, Tulare, Yolo counties.
None:
Page 11
Entry Project
SORTED BY CLASS
Scientific Name
Common Name
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus
western snowy plover
Status
Federal FT
State none
Other Audubon:
Watch List
(full species)
DFG: CSC
(nesting,
coastal
population)
FWS: BCC
(full species)
FWS: MBTA
USBC: Watch
List (full
species)
Circus cyaneus
northern harrier
Federal none
State none
Other DFG: CSC
(nesting)
FWS: MBTA
Egretta thula
snowy egret
Federal none
State none
Other DFG: Special
Animal
(rookery)
FWS: MBTA
USBC: Watch
List
CalBiota
TM
Inhabits sandy beaches, salt pond levees and shores of large alkali lakes.
Requires sandy, gravelly or friable soils for nesting.
Feb 5, 2008
Potential For
Occurrence On Site
None:
Federal listing applies only to the Pacific coastal population.
Recorded from Alameda, Del Norte, Humboldt, Inyo, Kern, Kings, Los
Angeles, Marin, Mendocino, Modoc, Monterey, Napa, Orange, Riverside,
San Bernardino, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara,
Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Siskiyou, Sonoma, Ventura, Yolo counties.
Inhabits coastal salt and freshwater marshes. Nests and forages in
grasslands, from salt grass in desert sink to mountain cienagas. Nests on
ground in shrubby vegetation, usually at marsh edge. Nests are large
mounds of sticks in wet areas.
Recorded from Alameda, Butte, Contra Costa, Inyo, Marin, Merced,
Monterey, Orange, Riverside, San Diego, San Mateo counties.
None:
on site.
Nests colonially, with nest sites situated in protected beds of dense tules.
Rookery sites are usually situated close to foraging areas consisting of
marshes, tidal-flats, streams, wet meadows, and borders of lakes.
Recorded from Contra Costa, Del Norte, Humboldt, Kern, Marin, Riverside,
Sacramento, Stanislaus counties.
None:
Marginally suitable habitat
present on adjacent lands.
Page 12
Entry Project
SORTED BY CLASS
Scientific Name
Common Name
Elanus leucurus
white-tailed kite
Status
Federal none
State none
Other DFG: fully
protected
FWS:
MNBMC,
MBTA
Falco columbarius
merlin
Federal none
State none
saltmarsh common yellowthroat
Federal none
State none
Other DFG: CSC
FWS: BCC
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
bald eagle
Federal Delisted
State SE
Other CDF:
Sensitive
DFG: fully
protected
(nesting
wintering)
FWS: MBTA
CalBiota
TM
Potential For
Occurrence On Site
Inhabits rolling foothills andvalley margins with scattered oaks and river
bottomlands or marshes next to deciduous woodlands. Utilizes open
grasslands, meadows, or marshes for foraging close to isolated,
dense-topped trees for nesting and perching.
Recorded from Alameda, Colusa, Contra Costa, Del Norte, Marin, Napa,
Placer, Riverside, Sacramento, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo,
Santa Clara, Solano, Sonoma, Tehama, Ventura, Yolo counties.
Possible:
marginally suitable nesting
habitat present on site and
adjacent lands.
Winters on the seacoast, in tidal estuaries, open woodlands, savannahs,
edges of grasslands and deserts, farms and ranches. Clumps of trees or
windbreaks are required for roosting in open country.
None:
on site.
Other DFG: CSC
(wintering)
FWS: MBTA
Geothlypis trichas sinuosa
Feb 5, 2008
Marginally suitable wintering
habitat present on adjacent
lands.
Inhabits freshwater and salt marshes. Requires thick, continuous cover down Not expected:
to water surface for foraging. Nests in tall grasses, tule patches and willows. marginally suitable habitat
Resident of the San Francisco Bay region.
present.
Recorded from Alameda, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa
Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano, Sonoma counties.
Found on ocean shores, lake margins, and rivers. Mostly nests within 1 mile
of water. Nests in large, old-growth, or dominant live trees with open
branches, especially ponderosa pine. Roosts communally in winter.
Occasional visitor to San Francisco Bay habitats, primarily in migration and
winter. Recently (2007) delisted and no longer on the U.S. list of threatened
and endangered species.
Recorded from Alameda, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, Del Norte, El Dorado,
Fresno, Glenn, Humboldt, Inyo, Lake, Lassen, Los Angeles, Madera,
Mendocino, Modoc, Mono, Monterey, Napa, Nevada, Plumas, Riverside, San
Bernardino, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou,
Tehama, Trinity, Tuolumne, Yuba counties.
Formerly common and widely distributed as a breeder throughout the state.
Low:
Species is making a
comeback and may return
to more former breeding
locations in the San
Francisco Bay region.
Page 13
Entry Project
SORTED BY CLASS
Scientific Name
Common Name
Hydroprogne caspia
Caspian tern
Status
Federal none
State none
Other DFG: Special
Animal
(nesting
colony)
FWS: BCC;
MBTA
Larus californicus
California gull
Federal none
State none
Other DFG: CSC
(nesting
colony)
FWS: MBTA
Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus
California black rail
CalBiota
TM
Feb 5, 2008
Potential For
Occurrence On Site
Nests in small colonies inland and along the coast. Inhabits inland freshwater None:
lakes and marshes. Also found in brackish or salt waters of estuaries and
bays.
Recorded from Contra Costa, Imperial, Solano counties.
Inhabits littoral waters, sandy beaches, waters and shorelines of bays, tidal
mud-flats, marshes, lakes, etc. Nests colonially on islets in large interior
lakes or fresh to strongly alkaline water.
Recorded from Lassen, Modoc, Mono counties.
None:
no suitable nesting habitat
present.
Species does not nest in the
project region.
Mainly inhabits salt-marshes bordering larger bays. Occurs in tidal salt marsh None:
densely vegetated with pickleweed. Also found in freshwater and brackish
State ST
marshes, near sea level.
Recorded from Alameda, Butte, Contra Costa, Imperial, Los Angeles, Marin,
Other Audubon:
Watch list (full Napa, Nevada, Orange, San Diego, San Francisco, San Joaquin, San Luis
Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Solano, Sonoma, Yuba counties.
species)
DFG: Fully
protected
FWS: MBTA
FWS:
MNBMC (full
species)
USBC: Watch
list (full
species)
Federal none
Page 14
Entry Project
SORTED BY CLASS
Scientific Name
Common Name
Melospiza melodia pusillula
Alameda song sparrow
Status
Federal none
State none
San Pablo song sparrow
Federal none
State none
Other DFG: CSC
FWS: BCC;
MBTA
Nycticorax nycticorax
black-crowned night-heron
Federal none
State none
Other BLM:
Sensitive
DFG: Special
Animal
(rookery)
FWS: MBTA
Pandion haliaetus
osprey
Federal none
State none
Other CDF:
Sensitive
DFG: CSC
(nesting)
FWS: MBTA
CalBiota
TM
Potential For
Occurrence On Site
Inhabits pickleweed marshes. Nests low in Grindelia bushes (high enough to None:
escape high tides) and in pickleweed. Resident of salt marshes bordering the no suitable habitat present.
southern arm of San Francisco Bay.
Other DFG: CSC
FWS: BCC;
MBTA
Melospiza melodia samuelis
Feb 5, 2008
Marginally suitable nesting
habitat present in project
vicinity.
Inhabits tidal sloughs in pickleweed marshes. Nests in Grindelia bushes
bordering slough channels. Resident of salt marshes along the north side of
San Francisco and San Pablo bays.
Recorded from Solano County.
None:
Project is outside the range
of the subspecies.
None:
Nests colonially, usually in trees, but occasionally in tule patches. Rookery
sites located adjacent to foraging areas such as lake margins, mud-bordered no suitable habitat present.
bays, marshy spots.
Recorded from Contra Costa, Humboldt, Marin, Riverside, Sacramento,
Sutter counties.
Nests along ocean shores, bays, freshwater lakes, and larger streams.
Constructs large nests in tree-tops within 15 miles of good fish-producing
body of water.
Recorded from Butte, Del Norte, El Dorado, Humboldt, Inyo, Lake, Lassen,
Marin, Mendocino, Modoc, Mono, Placer, Plumas, Shasta, Siskiyou, Solano,
Sonoma, Tehama, Trinity, Tuolumne counties.
Not expected:
no suitable nesting habitat
present.
Page 15
Entry Project
SORTED BY CLASS
Scientific Name
Common Name
Phalacrocorax auritus
double-crested cormorant
Status
Federal none
State none
Other DFG: CSC
(rookery site)
FWS: MBTA
Picoides nuttallii
Nuttall's woodpecker
Federal none
State none
Other Audubon:
Watch List
(Yellow)
DFG: Special
Animal
(nesting)
FWS: MBTA
USBC: Watch
List
Rallus longirostris obsoletus
California clapper rail
Federal FE
State SE
Other DFG: Fully
protected
FWS: MBTA
USBC: Watch
list (full
species)
CalBiota
TM
Feb 5, 2008
Potential For
Occurrence On Site
Nests colonially on coastal cliffs, offshore islands, and along lake margins in
the interior of the state. Nests along coast on sequestered islets, usually on
ground with sloping surface, or in tall trees along lake margins.
Recorded from Alameda, Contra Costa, Del Norte, Humboldt, Lake, Lassen,
Mariposa, Monterey, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, Santa
Barbara, Sonoma, Ventura counties.
None:
A common, permanent resident of low-elevation riparian deciduous and oak
habitats.
Possible:
suitable habitat present both
on site and on adjacent
lands.
General distribution:Occurs in the Central Valley, Transverse and Peninsular
Ranges, in the Coast Ranges north to Sonoma Co. and rarely to Humboldt
Co., and in lower portions of the Cascade Range and Sierra Nevada. Occurs
as a vagrant in the Owens Valley.
Inhabits salt-water and brackish marshes traversed by tidal sloughs in the
vicinity of San Francisco Bay. Associated with abundant growths of
pickleweed, but feeds away from cover on invertebrates from mud-bottomed
sloughs.
Recorded from Alameda, Contra Costa, Humboldt, Marin, Monterey, Napa,
San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, Sonoma counties.
None:
Marginally suitable wintering
habitat present on adjacent
lands.
Page 16
Entry Project
SORTED BY CLASS
Scientific Name
Common Name
Rynchops niger
black skimmer
Status
Federal none
State none
Other Audubon:
Watch List
(Yellow)
DFG: CSC
(nesting
colony)
FWS: BCC;
MBTA
USBC: Watch
List
Selasphorus sasin
Allen's hummingbird
Federal none
State none
Other Audubon:
Watch List
(Yellow)
DFG: Special
Animal
(nesting)
FWS: MBTA
USBC: Watch
List
CalBiota
TM
Feb 5, 2008
Potential For
Occurrence On Site
None:
Nests on gravel bars, low islets, and sandy beaches, in unvegetated sites.
Nesting colonies usually less than 200 pairs. Nests along the north and south no suitable habitat present.
ends of the Salton Sea and on salt pond dikes of south San Diego Bay.
Recorded from Alameda, Imperial, Orange, Riverside, San Diego counties.
Breeds most commonly in coastal scrub, valley foothill hardwood, and valley
foothill riparian habitats, but also are common in closed-cone pine-cypress,
urban, and redwood habitats. Occurs in a variety of woodland and scrub
habitats as a migrant.
Possible:
suitable habitat present both
on site and on adjacent
lands.
Page 17
Entry Project
SORTED BY CLASS
Scientific Name
Common Name
Sterna antillarum browni
California least tern
Status
Federal FE
State SE
Other Audubon:
Watch List
(Red)
DFG: Fully
protected
FWS: MBTA
USBC: Watch
List (full
species)
Toxostoma redivivum
California thrasher
Federal none
State none
Breeds in colonies on bare or sparsely vegetated, flat substrates consisting
of sand beaches, alkali flats, land fills, or paved areas. Nests along the coast
from San Francisco Bay south to northern Baja California.
Recorded from Alameda, Contra Costa, Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego,
San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Ventura counties.
yellow-headed blackbird
Federal none
State none
Other DFG: Special
Animal
(nesting)
FWS: MBTA
CalBiota
TM
Potential For
Occurrence On Site
Not expected:
marginally suitable nesting
habitat present on roof top
of bldg 24.
No evidence of recent
nesting observed.
A common resident of foothills and lowlands in cismontane California.
Occupies moderate to dense chaparral habitats and, less commonly,
extensive thickets in young or open valley foothill riparian habitat. In
southern California, occurs in montane chaparral up to 1500-2000 m
(5000-6600 ft). Avoids dense tree canopy.
None:
on site.
Nests in freshwater emergent wetlands with dense vegetation and deep
water. Often found along borders of lakes or ponds.
Nests only where large insects such as odonata are abundant, nesting timed
with maximum emergence of aquatic insects.
None:
Other Audubon:
Watch List
(Yellow)
DFG: Special General distribution:Occurs from the Mexican border north to Shasta, Trinity,
and southern Humboldt counties., and into the Shasta Valley of Siskiyou
Animal
FWS: MBTA County.
USBC: Watch
List
Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus
Feb 5, 2008
Suitable habitat present on
adjacent lands.
Page 18
Entry Project
SORTED BY CLASS
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Feb 5, 2008
Potential For
Occurrence On Site
Mammalia - Mammals
Antrozous pallidus
pallid bat
Federal none
State none
Other BLM:
Sensitive
DFG: CSC
FS: Sensitive
WBWG: High
priority
Enhydra lutris nereis
southern sea otter
Federal FT
State none
Other DFG: Fully
protected
Lasionycteris noctivagans
silver-haired bat
Federal none
State none
Other DFG: CSC
WBWG:
Medium
priority
CalBiota
TM
Inhabits deserts, grasslands, shrublands, woodlands and forests. Most
commonly found in open, dry habitats with rocky areas for roosting. Roosts
must provide protection from high temperatures. Species is very sensitive to
disturbances to roosting sites.
Recorded from Calaveras, Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Lake, Marin, Mariposa,
Mono, Napa, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Joaquin,
San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Siskiyou, Sonoma, Tuolumne counties.
Also from Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington.
Not expected:
marginally suitable roosting
habitat present in structures
on site.
Occurs in nearshore marine environments. Needs canopies of giant kelp
(Macrocystis pyrifera) and bull kelp (Nereocystis luetkeana) for rafting and
feeding. Prefers rocky substrates with abundant invertebrates.
Recorded from Marin, Ventura counties. Additional distribution: distributed
from about Ano Nuevo, San Mateo County to Point Sal, Santa Barbara
County.
Low:
CNDDB includes a single
record off Sausalito Point,
San Francisco Bay.
Summer habitats include coastal and montane coniferous forests, valley
foothill woodlands, pinyon- juniper woodlands, and valley foothill and
montane riparian habitats. Summer distribution of the silver-haired bat
includes coastal and montane forests from the Oregon border south along
the coast to San Francisco Bay, and along the Sierra Nevada and Great
Basin region to Inyo Co. This species also is recorded in Stanislaus and
Monterey cos. During spring and fall migrations and in winter, the
silver-haired bat may be found anywhere in California.
Recorded from Alpine, Del Norte, El Dorado, Fresno, Humboldt, Inyo,
Lassen, Madera, Marin, Mariposa, Mendocino, Modoc, Mono, Monterey,
Placer, Plumas, San Benito, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa
Cruz, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Sonoma, Trinity, Tuolumne counties.
Not expected:
marginally suitable roosting
habitat present in structures
on site.
Page 19
Entry Project
SORTED BY CLASS
Scientific Name
Common Name
Lasiurus cinereus
hoary bat
Status
Federal none
State none
Other
Microtus californicus sanpabloensis
San Pablo vole
Federal none
State none
Other DFG: CSC
Nyctinomops macrotis
big free-tailed bat
Federal none
State none
Other DFG: CSC
WBWG:
med.-high
priority
Reithrodontomys raviventris
Federal FE
salt-marsh harvest mouse
State SE
Other DFG: Fully
protected
Scapanus latimanus parvus
Alameda Island mole
Federal none
State none
Other DFG: CSC
CalBiota
TM
Feb 5, 2008
Potential For
Occurrence On Site
The hoary bat is the most widespread North American bat. May be found at
any location in California, although distribution patchy in southeastern
deserts. This common, solitary species winters along the coast and in
southern California, breeding inland and north of the winter range. During
migration, may be found at locations far from the normal range, such as the
Channel Islands (Brown 1980) and the Farallon Islands (Tenaza 1966).
Habitats suitable for bearing young include all woodlands and forests with
medium to large-size trees and dense foliage.
None:
Constructs burrows in soft soil. Feeds on grasses, sedges and herbs. Forms
a network of runways leading from the burrow. Occurs in saltmarshes.
Recorded from Contra Costa County. Additional distribution: San Pablo
Creek, on the south shore of San Pablo Bay.
None:
Prefers rugged, rocky terrain. Found to 2500 m (8000 ft). Feeds principally
on large moths but also takes a variety of other flying insects. Roosts in
buildings, caves, and occasionally in holes in trees. Also roosts in crevices in
high cliffs or rock outcrops.
Recorded from Alameda, Contra Costa, San Diego counties. Additional
distribution: rare in California, as fall and winter vagrants. Probably does not
breed in California. Alameda and Contra Costa records are suspect. Also
from Arizona, New Mexico, Texas.
None:
Pickleweed (Salicornia) is the primary habitat. Builds loosely organized nests
and does not burrow into the ground. Requires higher areas to escape
flooding. Restricted to saline emergent wetlands.
Recorded from Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano,
Sonoma counties. Additional distribution: San Francisco Bay and its
tributaries.
None:
Known only from Alameda Island. Found in a variety of habitats, but
especially associated with annual and perennial grasslands.
Prefers moist, friable soils. avoids flooded soils.
Recorded from Alameda County.
None:
Page 20
Entry Project
SORTED BY CLASS
Scientific Name
Common Name
Sorex ornatus sinuosus
Suisun shrew
Status
Federal none
State none
Other DFG: CSC
Sorex vagrans halicoetes
salt-marsh wandering shrew
Federal none
State none
Other DFG: CSC
Taxidea taxus
American badger
Federal none
State none
Other DFG: CSC
CalBiota
TM
Feb 5, 2008
Potential For
Occurrence On Site
Inhabits tidal marshes. Require dense low-lying cover and driftweed and
other litter above the mean hightide line for nesting and foraging.
Recorded from Napa, Solano counties. Additional distribution: northern
shores of San Pablo and Suisun bays.
None:
Inhabits salt marshes. Occurs in medium-high marsh 6-8 ft above sea level
where abundant driftwood is scattered among pickleweed.
Recorded from Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Santa Clara counties.
Additional distribution: southern arm of the San Francisco Bay.
None:
Most abundant in dry, open stages of most shrub, forest, and herbaceous
habitats. Needs sufficient food, friable soils and open, uncultivated ground.
Preys on burrowing rodents. Excavates its own burrows.
General distribution: recorded from every California county except Del Norte.
None:
Page 21
Appendix H
Special–Status Plant Designation Codes
EXPLANATION OF RARITY STATUS CODES
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (ESA) LISTING CODES
FE = federally listed as Endangered
FT = federally listed as Threatened
FPE = federally proposed for listing as Endangered
FPT = federally proposed for listing as Threatened
FPD = federally proposed for delisting
FC = federal candidate; former Category 1 candidates
FSC = federal species of concern; receives no legal protection. Use of the term does not
necessarily mean that a species will eventually be proposed for listing.
CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (CESA) LISTING CODES
SE = State-listed as Endangered
ST = State-listed as Threatened
SR = State-listed as Rare
SCE = State candidate for listing as Endangered
SCT = State candidate for listing as Threatened
CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY DESIGNATIONS (CNPS)
List 1: Plants of highest priority
List 1A: Plants presumed extinct in California
List 1B: Plants rare and endangered in California and elsewhere
List 2: Plants rare and endangered in California but more common elsewhere
List 3: Plants about which additional data are needed
List 4: Plants of limited distribution
CNPS Threat Code Extensions (replaces the RED code)
.1 - Seriously endangered in California
.2 – Fairly endangered in California
.3 – Not very endangered in California
Wood Biological Consulting
OTHER CODES
AFS: American Fisheries Society categories of risk for marine, estuarine and diadromous fish
stocks.
Audubon: Watch List: Bird species facing population declines and/or threats such as loss of
breeding and wintering grounds, or species with limited geographic ranges.
BLM: Sensitive: Bureau of Land Management. Includes species under review by FWS or
NMFS, species whose numbers are declining so rapidly that federal listing may become
necessary, species with small and widely dispersed populations, or species inhabiting
refugia or other unique habitats.
CDF: Sensitive: California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Includes species that
warrant special protection during timber operations.
DFG: CSC: California species of Special Concern.
DFG: Special Animal: Species included by the Department of Fish and Game in their special
species lists.
DFG: Fully Protected: Species protected under Sections 3511 (birds), 4700 (mammals), 5050
(reptiles and amphibians), and 5515 (fish) of the California Fish and Game Code.
FS: Sensitive: USDA Forest Service. Species identified by a regional forester for which
population viability is a concern, as evidenced by significant current or predicted
downward trends in population numbers or density, or in habitat capability that would
reduce a species’ existing distribution.
FWS: BCC: Birds of Conservation Concern: migratory and non-migratory bird species (beyond
listed species) that represent the FWS’s highest conservation priorities.
FWS: BEPA: Bald Eagle Protection Act
FWS: MBTA: International Migratory Bird Treat Act
FWS: MNBMC: US Fish and Wildlife Service: Migratory Nongame Birds of Management
Concern. Species considered to be of concern in the U.S. due to documented or apparent
population declines, small or restricted populations, or dependence on restricted or
vulnerable habitats.
USMC Watch List: US Bird Conservation Watch List.
WBWB: Priority: The Western Bat Working Group. Species imperiled or at high, medium, or
low risk of imperilment based on available information on distribution, status, ecology, and
known threats.

Honda Port of Entry Project

Transcription

Similar documents

Hollywood Nights

Saturday, June 27th11:00am to 9:00pm

The Parks and Recreation Foundation of San

Production and Market Flow Map: El Salvador Second Season Red

Find Out Now - Palmeras Residences

Capuchinbird

join in the national celebration of collector car appreciation day on

Textile Architecture San Michele Arcangelo

10 Marina Terra - Seaside Realty

This manual is provided FREE of charge and should be